Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SEFILYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sefilyan v. Armenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (25)

• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 54934/00

  Menschenrechte: Verletzung der Privatsphäre und des Briefgeheimnisses durch das …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  In its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 76, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 95, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 62540/00

  ASSOCIATION FOR EUROPEAN INTEGRATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AND EKIMDZHIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  In its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 76, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 95, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  In its case-law on secret measures of surveillance, the Court has developed the following minimum safeguards that should be set out in statute law in order to avoid abuses of power: the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order; a definition of the categories of people liable to have their telephones tapped; a limit on the duration of telephone tapping; the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained; the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties; and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed (see Weber and Saravia v. Germany (dec.), no. 54934/00, § 95, ECHR 2006-XI; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev v. Bulgaria, no. 62540/00, § 76, 28 June 2007; and Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 95, 1 July 2008).

 
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 35623/05

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens (Datenschutz; GPS-Überwachung; Observation; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  This assessment depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to permit, carry out and supervise them, and the kind of remedy provided by the national law (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 50, Series A no. 28; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above, § 77; and Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05, § 63, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  The Court draws attention to its established case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  This assessment depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature, scope and duration of the possible measures, the grounds required for ordering them, the authorities competent to permit, carry out and supervise them, and the kind of remedy provided by the national law (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 50, Series A no. 28; Association for European Integration and Human Rights and Ekimdzhiev, cited above, § 77; and Uzun v. Germany, no. 35623/05, § 63, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  Nevertheless, the law must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which public authorities are empowered to resort to this secret and potentially dangerous interference with the right to respect for private life and correspondence (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, § 67, Series A no. 82).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  The Court reiterates in this respect that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A, and Kopp v. Switzerland, 25 March 1998, § 59, Reports 1998-II).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  The Court draws attention to its established case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II, and Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  It reiterates that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 37975/97

  GRAUZINIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 56552/00

  TELECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, 5 July 2016; Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48-53, 20 October 2016) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see, among other examples, Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 49021/08

  SMBAT AYVAZYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 48-53) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see, among other authorities, Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).
• EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 46245/08

  AYVAZYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 48-53) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see, among other authorities, Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 44841/08

  JHANGIRYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 48-53) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see, among other authorities, Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).
• EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 28739/09

  VOSKERCHYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 48-53) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see, among other authorities, Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 25935/08

  ARZUMANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48-53, 20 October 2016) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and, most recently, Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  MINASYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has already examined an identical complaint in other cases against Armenia, in which it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant's detention was not based on a court decision and was therefore unlawful within the meaning of that provision (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 56-64, 20 December 2011; Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 79-82, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, § 60-63, 26 June 2012; and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, § 74-77, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 44769/08

  GASPARI v. ARMENIA

  The Court refers to its general principles under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention relating to the right to be released pending trial (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 48-53, 20 October 2016) and notes that it has already found the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention to be a recurring problem in Armenia (see Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012; and, most recently, Ara Harutyunyan, cited above, §§ 54-59).
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 68571/11

  KHANZADYAN v. ARMENIA

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Armenian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see among others Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2012 (extracts); Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88 et seq., 2 October 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74 et seq., 26 June 2012).