Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLEYN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - Competent court);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KLEYN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  A subsequent finding of a superior domestic court that a lower court erred under domestic law in making the order will not necessarily retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention (see, inter alia, Benham, cited above, § 42; Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 31464/96, § 45, 4 August 1999; Minjat v. Switzerland, no. 38223/97, § 41, 28 October 2003; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 128, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

  Furthermore, it has never been alleged by the applicant that the District Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or that there were any other flaws in the relevant detention (compare Zuyev v. Russia, no. 16262/05, § 74, 19 February 2013, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 135 in fine, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  Furthermore, it has never been alleged by the applicant that the District Court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, or that there were any other flaws in the relevant detention (compare Zuyev v. Russia, no. 16262/05, § 74, 19 February 2013, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 135 in fine, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 63486/00

  POSOKHOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  Referring to the case of Posokhov v. Russia (no. 63486/00, § 41, ECHR 2003-IV), the Presidium noted that the lay judges had not been authorised to consider the applicant's case, which had affected the lawfulness and well-foundedness of the applicant's conviction.

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  The Court must further ascertain in this connection whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein, notably the principle of legal certainty (compare Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2000-III; Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 152/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  In this respect the Court notes that in the earlier case of Yefimenko (Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 92-100, 12 February 2013), it found that the reopening of the case and the retrial could not be considered to constitute appropriate and sufficient redress, given that the applicant had spent a significant period serving a prison sentence imposed by "a tribunal not established by law".
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  A detention order must be considered as ex facie invalid if the flaw in the order amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the Court's case-law (compare Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Marturana, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 29798/96

  LLOYD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08

  TSVETKOVA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  However, where a person has already spent time in detention on the basis of a decision that contained a "gross and obvious irregularity", it can likely be concluded that the intervening period of detention was in breach of Article 5 § 1 (see for comparison Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 89-111, 12 February 2013, with further references; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 91-95, 30 May 2013; Kleyn v. Russia, no. 44925/06, §§ 28-29, 5 January 2016; Hammerton v. the United Kingdom, no. 6287/10, §§ 112-17, 17 March 2016; and Gumeniuc v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 48829/06, §§ 25-26, 16 May 2017).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  44925/06.
• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 3345/18

  OVCHAROV v. RUSSIA and 17 other applications

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see, among other authorities, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning absence of a prosecuting party from the administrative proceedings, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, concerning excessive length of pre-trial detention; Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019, concerning the right not to be tried and punished twice for the same offence; and Kleyn v. Russia, no. 44925/06, §§ 39-46, 5 January 2016, related to the right to compensation in respect of detention in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 58811/09

  SAVIN c. RUSSIE

  La Cour est arrivée à la même conclusion dans l'arrêt Kleyn c. Russie (no 44925/06, §§ 28-29, 5 janvier 2016), portant également sur un cas de condamnation par un tribunal dont le défaut ayant entaché la composition avait été par la suite reconnu par une instance de révision.
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 20489/07

  URUKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Supreme Court quashed the detention order because it disagreed with the assessment that the lower court had given to the statements by witnesses, but not because of any serious flaws or a procedural irregularity (see paragraph 19 above, compare with Vasiliy Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 16264/05, § 74, 19 February 2013; Roman Petrov v. Russia, no. 37311/08, § 45, 15 December 2015, and Kleyn v. Russia, no. 44925/06, § 29, 5 January 2016).