Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see, among many other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 124, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  In line with the Court's settled approach (see Lebedev, cited above, §§ 69-73; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI; and Grauzinis v. Lithuania, no. 37975/97, § 33, 10 October 2000), this complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 89, 1 June 2006; Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII; and Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B).

• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  It held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 131-133, 22 October 2009; Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, §§ 59-61, 15 January 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 90-91, 3 July 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 55-58, 25 October 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 84-85, 28 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 88-90, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich, cited above; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 147-151).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  It held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 131-133, 22 October 2009; Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, §§ 59-61, 15 January 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 90-91, 3 July 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 55-58, 25 October 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 84-85, 28 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 88-90, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich, cited above; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 147-151).
• EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  The Court lastly observes that the newspaper publications did not mention the applicant by name or reveal his photograph and did not contain any statements by a public official as to his guilt (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  It held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 131-133, 22 October 2009; Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, §§ 59-61, 15 January 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 90-91, 3 July 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 55-58, 25 October 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 84-85, 28 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 88-90, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich, cited above; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 147-151).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  On 13 May 2004 the trial court had returned the criminal case to the prosecutor but it had not given any reasons for extending the detention or limited it in time; this was arbitrary and incompatible with the requirements of the Convention (here the applicant referred to Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 70-71, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 89, 1 June 2006; Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII; and Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  It held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 131-133, 22 October 2009; Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, §§ 59-61, 15 January 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 90-91, 3 July 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 55-58, 25 October 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 84-85, 28 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 88-90, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich, cited above; and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 147-151).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 37975/97

  GRAUZINIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.01.2020 - 35121/09

  YURIY KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  In addition, the manner in which S. was designated as the applicant's lawyer at the hearing of 18 February 2009 excluded any practical possibility for the applicant to give that lawyer any relevant information or instructions (see Shulenkov v. Russia, no. 38031/04, §§ 53-55, 17 June 2010; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 90-93, 1 June 2006, and Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, §§ 207-11, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA

  Thus, it appears that there was no serious practical obstacle to the applicant being taken to a remand hearing on 29 September 2004 (see, by contrast, Shulenkov v. Russia, no. 38031/04, §§ 51, 17 June 2010).
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 21153/02

  BEDNOV ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  38031/04.

• EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 1442/14

  BLAIR ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  En l'occurrence, la Cour observe que les requérants ont accompagné leur demande de pièces justificatives nécessaires (Sejdić et Finci c. Bosnie-Herzégovine [GC], nos 27996/06 et 34836/06, §§ 64-66, CEDH 2009, Troubnikov c. Russie, no 49790/99, §§ 100-104, 5 juillet 2005, Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, §§ 71-73, 2 octobre 2008, Omojudi c. Royaume-Uni, no 1820/08, §§ 58-60, 24 novembre 2009, Artyomov c. Russie, no 14146/02, §§ 219-222, 27 mai 2010, Shulenkov c. Russie, no 38031/04, § 69-71, 17 juin 2010 et Gheorghe Dima, précité, § 117-119 ).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 22475/05

  DOLGOV v. RUSSIA

  Further, the Court has recently examined a similar complaint and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the case of Mr Shulenkov who was the applicant's co-defendant in the same criminal proceedings (see Shulenkov v. Russia, no. 38031/04, §§ 34-45, 17 June 2010).
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 4345/06

  [ENG]

  It rejected the applicant's complaints concerning his absence from the hearing and upheld the extension order issued by the Krasnodar Regional Court (see Shulenkov v. Russia, no. 38031/04, §§ 50-55, 17 June 2010).