Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PROSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Proshkin v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  However, where proceedings involve an assessment of the personality and character of the accused and his state of mind at the time of the offence and where their outcome could be of major detriment to him, it is essential to the fairness of the proceedings that he be present at the hearing and afforded the opportunity to participate in it together with his counsel (see Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 67, Series A no. 268-B; Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 31, 3 October 2000; and Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 71-73, Reports 1997-VII).
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  The State is under an obligation to secure the attendance of an accused who is in custody (see, mutatis mutandis, Goddi v. Italy, 9 April 1984, § 29, Series A no. 76).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  F.C.B. c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  In this context, authorities must show requisite diligence in ensuring the accused's right to be present in an effective manner and must act particularly carefully when infringing upon that right, so as not to place the mentally ill at a disadvantage when compared with other defendants who do enjoy such a right (see, mutatis mutandis, F.C.B. v. Italy, 28 August 1991, § 33, Series A no. 208-B).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.1999 - 28972/95

  NINN-HANSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  The Court reiterates further that the trial court may exceptionally continue hearings where the accused is absent on account of illness, provided that his or her interests are sufficiently protected (see Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 28972/95, p. 351, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of the Convention contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, inter alia, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 96, Series A no. 39; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 49, ECHR 2000-III; and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  Citing the Court's findings in the case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33), the applicant further argued that the domestic courts had entirely and without any justification or legal basis impaired the very essence of his right to judicial supervision of the lawfulness of his detention.
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  It requires at the same time that any deprivation of liberty should be in conformity with the purpose of Article 5, which is to prevent people from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, 12 February 2008).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of the Convention contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, inter alia, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 96, Series A no. 39; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 49, ECHR 2000-III; and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  It requires at the same time that any deprivation of liberty should be in conformity with the purpose of Article 5, which is to prevent people from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 54, Series A no. 111, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, 12 February 2008).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  In principle, the "detention" of a person as a mental health patient will only be "lawful" for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV, with further references).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  HADI v. CROATIA