Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The Court firstly reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  Rather, that individual is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Panchenko, cited above, § 93, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The Court firstly reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Benediktov, cited above, §§ 33 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); 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, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continued detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  Until his conviction, the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continued detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  The "charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test of whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  A la suite de l'arrêt Bordikov, la Cour a jugé dans plusieurs affaires qu'elle ne pouvait prendre en considération des périodes de détention provisoire qui s'étaient terminées plus de six mois avant l'introduction de la requête (Vladimir Krivonosov, précité, § 127 ; Kovaleva c. Russie, no 7782/04, § 71, 2 décembre 2010 ; et Svetlana Kazmina, précité, § 85).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  Le Gouvernement n'ayant pas contesté cet élément, la Cour considère par conséquent comme étant établi que le requérant n'a pas été nourri les jours où il devait assister aux audiences relatives à la procédure pénale engagée à son encontre, c'est-à-dire à un moment où il avait besoin de toutes ses facultés mentales (Kovaleva c. Russie, no 7782/04, §§ 64-65, 2 décembre 2010).