Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,68776
EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,68776)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.03.2007 - 72967/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,68776)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. März 2007 - 72967/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,68776)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,68776) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (86)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Mamedova, cited above, § 62 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).

    It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - 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 Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-...; Jecius, cited above, §§ 60-64, and Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-58).

    This is particularly true in the Russian legal system where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of the issue whether the evidence that has been obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, 8 November 2005).

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Mamedova, cited above, § 62 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).

    The Court has examined the validity of the reservation and found it compatible with the requirements of Article 57 of the Convention (see Labzov v. Russia (dec.), no. 62208/00, 28 February 2002).

  • EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

    OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    The Court therefore rejects the applicant's claim in respect of Mrs Liptser's fees (see, mutatis mutandis, Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, § 80).
     
  • EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

    DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    This part of the claim must also be rejected (see, mutatis mutandis, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), judgment of 24 February 1983, Series A no. 59, § 22).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    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 Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, § 47).
  • EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

    ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    The Court reiterates that the principle of presumption of innocence prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal of the opinion that the person charged with the criminal offence is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 41).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    He referred to the cases of Jecius v. Lithuania (no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX) and Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    He referred to the cases of Jecius v. Lithuania (no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX) and Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Mamedova, cited above, § 62 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see, in particular, Mamedova, cited above, § 62 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., 8 November 2005; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

    NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

    NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

    KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 24559/94

    GIBAS c. POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Starting with the Kalashnikov judgment in 2002, the Court has to date found a violation of the obligation to guarantee a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, in more than eighty cases against Russia where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and employing the same stereotyped formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Mamedova, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.

    Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, 1 March 2007 (IZ-77/3, Moscow, 2001-2002).

  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

    Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

    Der Gerichtshof hat erkannt, dass eine fehlende Begründung der Entscheidungen der Justizbehörden über eine langfristige Freiheitsentziehung mit dem in Artikel 5 Abs. 1 verankerten Grundsatz des Schutzes vor Willkür unvereinbar ist (siehe Rechtssachen Stasaitis ./. Litauen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47679/99, Randnr. 67, 21. März 2002; Nakhmanovich ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 55669/00, Randnr. 70, 2. März 2006; und Belevitskiy ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 72967/01, Randnr. 91, 1. März 2007).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

    Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

    Thus, in such cases, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 where the lack of space went together with other poor material conditions of detention such as: a lack of ventilation and light (see Torreggiani and Others, cited above, § 69; see also Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 44, 18 October 2007; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 84, 12 June 2008; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 124-27, 9 October 2008); limited access to outdoor exercise (see István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, § 26, 17 January 2012) or a total lack of privacy in the cell (see Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 32 and 40-43, 2 June 2005; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 73-79, 1 March 2007).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht