Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KALININ v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  It is a working document containing a summary of the applicant's submissions which, upon the preliminary examination of the application and documents submitted, give the Court reason to believe that the case reveals prima facie evidence of a violation of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 122, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  For the purposes of Article 5 § 3, the period to be taken into consideration ends with the applicant's release or his or her conviction by the first-instance court (see, most recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 112, 22 May 2012; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145-147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  For the purposes of Article 5 § 3, the period to be taken into consideration ends with the applicant's release or his or her conviction by the first-instance court (see, most recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 112, 22 May 2012; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145-147, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  In accordance with national and international practice, the Court is competent to examine facts which occurred during the proceedings before it and constitute a mere extension or the facts complained of at the outset, in particular in matters of detention while on remand (see, as a classic authority, Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 7, Series A no. 9; and the case-law cited in Novokreshchin v. Russia, no. 40573/08, § 16, 27 November 2014).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  If the applicant is still in pre-trial detention on the date of examination of his complaint by the Court, the Court is competent to examine the State's compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 in respect of the detention period up until the judgment date (see Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 89, 5 February 2013; Sahap DoÄŸan v. Turkey, no. 29361/07, § 26, 27 May 2010; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 144, 19 March 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 121, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008, and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008, and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  If the applicant is still in pre-trial detention on the date of examination of his complaint by the Court, the Court is competent to examine the State's compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 in respect of the detention period up until the judgment date (see Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 89, 5 February 2013; Sahap DoÄŸan v. Turkey, no. 29361/07, § 26, 27 May 2010; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 144, 19 March 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, § 121, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008, and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008, and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02

  SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 67482/10

  SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  54749/12.
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  [ENG]

  The Government referred to their objections as to the admissibility of the complaint which they formulated in the case of Kalinin v. Russia (no. 54749/12, § 12, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers that in such circumstances the Government's declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 21, 10 October 2013, and Kalinin v. Russia, no. 54749/12, § 23, 19 February 2015).

• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court is unable to find that a lack of information about further extensions to the applicant's detention and his conviction would have had a decisive influence on its judgment, or have prevented it from ruling on the case (see Kalinin v. Russia [Committee], no. 54749/12, §§ 18-21, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court is unable to find that a lack of information about further extensions of the applicant's detention and her conviction could have had a decisive influence on its judgment, or could have prevented it from ruling on the case (see Kalinin v. Russia [Committee], no. 54749/12, §§ 18-21, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

  MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances, any subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings against him would not have affected the core of the matter underlying his complaint under the Convention (see Kalinin v. Russia [Committee], no. 54749/12, §§ 18-21, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 7243/10

  YEVSTRATOV AND RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court is unable to find that a lack of information about further extensions of the applicants' detention and their conviction could have had a decisive influence on its judgment, or could have prevented it from ruling on the case (see Kalinin v. Russia [Committee], no. 54749/12, § 18 - 21, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA

  Without prejudging its decision on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Court considers, in such circumstances, that the Government's declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Sorokin v. Russia, no. 67482/10, § 21, 10 October 2013, and Kalınin v. Russia, no. 54749/12, § 23, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16747/12

  DUBOV v. RUSSIA

  In accordance with national and international practice, the Court is competent to examine facts which occurred during the proceedings before it and constitute a mere extension or the facts complained of at the outset (see Kalinin v. Russia, no. 54749/12, § 15, 19 February 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  MSKHILADZE v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the available information, the parties' submissions and the scope of the present case, the Court considers it appropriate to examine the complaint as concerning the period from 15 December 2015 to 22 June 2017 (see, for the approach, albeit in the context of a continuous situation under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, Novokreshchin v. Russia (Committee), no. 40573/08, §§ 11-18, 27 November 2014, and Kalinin v. Russia (Committee), no. 54749/12, §§ 3 and 15, 19 February 2015).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA