Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSANDR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  It appears that it was the intention that the Convention should, by means of this distinction, attach a special stigma to deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  The Court finds that it was effected in breach of the requirements implicit in Article 5 of the Convention for the proper recording of deprivations of liberty (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV, and Menesheva, cited above, §§ 87-89).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 15413/03

  ZENIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 157, ECHR 2009-...; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 70, 1 April 2010, and Zenin v. Russia (dec.), no. 15413/03, 24 September 2009).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 157, ECHR 2009-...; Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 70, 1 April 2010, and Zenin v. Russia (dec.), no. 15413/03, 24 September 2009).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 20364/05

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  In view of the above, the Court finds that this period constituted unrecorded and unacknowledged detention, which, in the Court's constant view, is a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a most grave violation of that provision (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva, cited above, § 87; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 73, 2 October 2008; and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 71-72, 4 November 2010; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 58717/10

  NASIROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 71-72, 4 November 2010; and Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, § 57, 23 April 2015; see also Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III; and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 18322/05

  DENISENKO v. RUSSIA

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, among others, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 30271/03, §§ 81-84, 25 November 2010; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 38887/09

  FARTUSHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that the applicant's unrecorded detention was a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and was incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5. There has accordingly been a violation of this Article (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 82-85, 1 March 2007, and Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 70-73, 4 November 2010, in which the Court found a violation in comparable circumstances involving unrecorded detention of persons suspected of having committed criminal offences; see also El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 236-237, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR - 12097/09 (anhängig)

  YAKUNIN v. RUSSIA

  Was the applicant's detention from 1 to 4 April 2008 "lawful" in the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention? In particular, was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 on account of the alleged delay in compiling the arrest record, as a result of which the applicant's detention was unrecorded for a period of approximately forty-one hours and a half between 8.30 p.m. on 1 April 2008 and 2 p.m. on 3 April 2008 (see Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, §§ 70-73, 4 November 2010)? Having regard to the fact that applicant was detained without a judicial decision for more than forty-eight hours, was his detained "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law"?.