Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHODZHAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-f - Extradition) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention Take ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  Long intervals in the context of automatic periodic review may give rise to a violation of Article 5 § 4 (see, among others, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 77, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  The Court reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  Article 5 § 4 guarantees a remedy that must be accessible to the person concerned (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 174-177, 17 January 2012; and Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 45, Series A no. 107).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.07.2015 - C-237/15

  Lanigan

  83 - Vgl. EGMR, De Wilde, Ooms und Versyp/Belgien, 18. Juni 1971, Serie A Nr. 12, § 76, Engel u. a./Niederlande, 8. Juni 1976, Serie A Nr. 22, § 77, Khodzhamberdiyev/Russland, 5. Juni 2012, Nr. 64809/10, § 103, sowie Soliyev/Russland, Nr. 62400/10, § 50.
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  For instance, in two Russian cases the Court has found that intervals between periodic reviews of detention ranging from two to four months were compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, §§ 57-62, 5 June 2012, and Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 108-14, 5 June 2012).