Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  The Court considers that the impugned periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85 and 86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  In order to assess the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court must make an overall evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, as recent authorities, Belov, cited above, § 102; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  From the latter date until 23 October 2002, when the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 14 March 2002, she was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a), and therefore that period of detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see B. v Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 33-39, Series A no. 175, and Kudla, cited above, § 104).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  MISHKETKUL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

• EGMR - 4613/09 (anhängig)

  SYASKO v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the reasons expressly relied on by the domestic courts in the detention orders (see, for example, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 66, 10 March 2009 and Savenkova v. Russia, no. 30930/02, §§ 85 and 87, 4 March 2010), was the applicant's detention on remand justified by "relevant and sufficient reasons", as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 § 1 (c) thereof?.