Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03   

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/2014,5729
EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03 (https://dejure.org/2014,5729)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.04.2014 - 14945/03 (https://dejure.org/2014,5729)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. April 2014 - 14945/03 (https://dejure.org/2014,5729)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,5729) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Public hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (13)  

  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 6312/13

    LUTSKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    However, with the passage of time the nature and the seriousness of the offence as grounds for the applicant's continued detention inevitably became less and less relevant (see Kovyazin and Others, cited above, § 85, and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

    YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

    Bearing in mind the six-month requirement laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not competent to examine these grievances (for the same approach see Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 159, 3 October 2013; Khudoyorov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 6847/02, 22 February 2005; and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 90, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

    KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    By way of comparison, the Court has previously given weight to the Russian authorities" reliance on the gravity of certain offences, such as kidnapping compounded with extortion (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014), or multiple aggravated gang kidnapping associated with extortion, robbery and possession and trafficking of firearms (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 7 and 98, 5 February 2015), or aggravated fraud by an organised group (see Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 6 and 40, 18 December 2012), or an organised aggravated murder (see Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, §§ 10 and 104, 27 November 2014), or an organised aggravated assault causing injuries of four and one death (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 103, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 43611/02

    BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

    The presumption being in favour of release, it was incumbent on the Russian authorities to offer convincing reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 74, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 2613/13

    AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA

    However, with the passage of time the nature and the seriousness of the offence as grounds for the applicant's continued detention inevitably became less and less relevant (see Kovyazin and Others, cited above, § 85, and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 62630/13

    POLIKHOVICH v. RUSSIA

    However, with the passage of time the nature and the seriousness of the offences as the ground for the applicant's continued detention inevitably became less and less relevant (see Kovyazin and Others, cited above, § 85, and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

    SOS v. CROATIA

    The Court observes at the outset that the national authorities must put forward convincing reasons for having kept the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 74, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

    BARABANOV v. RUSSIA

    However, with the passage of time the nature and the seriousness of the offence as the ground for the applicant's continued detention inevitably became less and less relevant (see Kovyazin and Others, cited above, § 85, and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13

    KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA

    However, with the passage of time the nature and the seriousness of the offence as the ground for the applicant's continued detention inevitably became less and less relevant (see Kovyazin and Others, cited above, § 85, and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 44292/09

    GVINIASHVILI v. RUSSIA

    The Court reiterates that it has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to those in the present case (see Idalov, cited above, §§ 161-64; Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, §§ 95-97, 3 April 2014; Pyatkov v. Russia, no. 61767/08, §§ 128-133, 13 November 2012; Solovyevy, cited above, §§ 134-138; Koroleva v. Russia, no.1600/09, §§ 107-110, 13 November 2012; and Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, §§ 64-68, 17 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 57426/14

    DVORETSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 49507/10

    DUDNICHENKO AND WAES v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 34640/05

    LYUBCHENKO v. UKRAINE

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