Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,55851
EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,55851)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.10.2012 - 22491/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,55851)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Januar 2012 - 22491/08 (https://dejure.org/2012,55851)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55851) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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 (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (10)

  • EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23086/08

    MUSHEGH SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Court notes that this complaint concerns a repetitive situation which has already been examined in a number of cases against Armenia, in which a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention was found (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; Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, §§ 54-59, 20 October 2016; and Arzumanyan v. Armenia, no. 25935/08, §§, 36-37, 11 January 2018).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

    ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

    Article 138 § 3 of the CCP, which allowed a person to remain in detention without a court decision after the prosecutor transmitted the case to the court, was found to fail to satisfy the principle of legal certainty (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 56-64, 20 December 2011; also Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 81-82, 26 June 2012, Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 62-63, 26 June 2012, Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 76-77, 2 October 2012, and Minasyan v. Armenia, no. 44837/08, §§ 52-53, 8 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

    ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    As to the other grounds on which the domestic courts relied, the Court observes that, like the initial judicial decisions ordering the applicant's pre-trial detention, those judicial decisions did not go any further than listing the above-mentioned grounds, including the gravity of the charges and the risk of absconding and obstruction, using a standard formula paraphrasing the terms of the CCrP (compare Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, §§ 76-79, 13 January 2009, and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, § 89, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 629/11

    ARA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Court lastly notes that the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention appears to be a recurring problem in Armenia and a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention has already been found in a number of cases (see Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 97-100, 26 June 2012; Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, §§ 74-77, 26 June 2012; and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, §§ 88-93, 2 October 2012).
  • 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, 20.07.2017 - 50520/08

    HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Court lastly notes that the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention appears to be a recurring problem in Armenia, and a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention has already been found in a number of cases (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 Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, cited above, §§ 54-62).
  • 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, 20.07.2017 - 44286/12

    BADALYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Court lastly notes that the use of stereotyped formulae when imposing and extending detention appears to be a recurring problem in Armenia and a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention has already been found in a number of cases (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 Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, cited above, §§ 54-62).
  • 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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht