Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses (domestic and Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed ...

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51; also see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).

  46133/99 and 48183/99, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, 20 October 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  46133/99 and 48183/99, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, 20 October 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51; also see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).

• 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.
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  ; Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, §§ 38 et suiv., 2 mars 2006 ; Rokhlina c. Russie, no 54071/00, §§ 63 et suiv., 7 avril 2005 ; Panchenko, précité, §§ 91 et suiv.
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  The applicant also submitted that the Court had already found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in another application brought by the applicant's co-defendant (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006).

  In my dissenting opinion in the case of Dolgova v. Russia (no. 11886/05, 2 March 2006) I referred to the judgment in the case of Labita v. Italy ([GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) to underline that "[w]hether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features" (Labita, § 152).

 
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formula paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, Mamedova and Khudoyorov cases cited above, and also Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; 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.
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  Dès lors, il n'est pas nécessaire de rechercher de surcroît si les autorités nationales compétentes ont apporté une « diligence particulière'à la poursuite de la procédure (Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, § 50, 2 mars 2006).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces circonstances, il n'est pas nécessaire de rechercher si les autorités nationales compétentes ont apporté une « diligence particulière'à la poursuite de la procédure (Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, § 50, 2 mars 2006).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans des affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en se fondant essentiellement sur la gravité des charges et sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, CEDH 2006-XII, Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, 2 mars 2006, Michketkoul et autres c. Russie, no 36911/02, 24 mai 2007, Choukhardine c. Russie, no 65734/01, 28 juin 2007, Belov c. Russie, no 22053/02, 3 juillet 2008, Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, 30 juillet 2009, Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, et Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, 27 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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.
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formula paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see the Belevitskiy, Mamedova and Khudoyorov cases cited above, and also Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; 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.
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  Dans ces circonstances, il n'est pas nécessaire de rechercher si les autorités nationales compétentes ont apporté une « diligence particulière'à la poursuite de la procédure (Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, § 50, 2 mars 2006).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  TSARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

  PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 6289/03

  IRINEL POPA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06

  POPKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04

  MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 17009/03

  CIOINEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 41169/02

  KONONOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 59813/09

  LAZAREV AND BEKTASHYANTS v. RUSSIA