Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56357) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
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.However, even taking into account the heavy case-load of the Supreme Court, the Court considers that periods of more than forty days on each occasion cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (compare Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days).
- EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The applicant also submitted that his detention from 20 to 28 May 2009 had been arbitrary because the City Court's extension order of 14 May 2009 had not set a time-limit for his detention or given any grounds for it (here he referred to the Court's findings in Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 91-92, 1 March 2007).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, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
- EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98
PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
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, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00
ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
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, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05
DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
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, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
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, 30.11.2017 - 4622/09
POLTORATSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2013), regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters; Govorushko (cited above, §§ 69-61) and Korshunov (cited above, §§ 60-63), concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 146-151, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), pertaining to the absence a valid domestic decision or other "lawful" basis for detention on remand; and Tsarenko v. Russia (no. 5235/09, §§ 58-63, 3 March 2011), regarding detention in excess of the maximum time-limit established by the Russian law.5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - After 20/07/2009 the applicant's detention exceeded the statutory 18-month time-limit provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, 3/03/2011),.
- EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 25658/19
BANEVI c. BULGARIE
La présomption étant toujours en faveur de la libération, il appartenait aux autorités bulgares d'exposer des arguments particulièrement solides pour maintenir le requérant en détention pendant une si longue période (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et ? tvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018). - EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 40834/11
KALINICHENKO c. RUSSIE
La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'examiner des situations dans lesquelles la détention provisoire des requérants a été prorogée à plusieurs reprises sur la base de cette disposition (Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, §§ 59-63, 3 mars 2011, Suslov c. Russie, no 2366/07, §§ 75-79, 29 mai 2012, Pyatkov c. Russie, précité, §§ 86-91, et Yuriy Rudakov c. Russie, no 48982/08, §§ 59-65, 15 janvier 2015).
- EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20
STAYKOV c. BULGARIE
Le caractère raisonnable de la durée de détention 82. La Cour observe d'emblée que cette durée de détention en l'espèce pourrait être sérieusement préoccupante et exiger une justification très solide (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et ? tvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018). - EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 41333/14
MAKARSKIY v. RUSSIA
14. - EGMR - 25038/14 (anhängig)
LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
Was the applicant's detention in excess of the maximum statutory domestic time-limit compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 60-61, 3 March 2011)? Did the courts adduce "relevant and sufficient" reasons for continuing his detention, as required by Article 5 § 3?.