Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95
BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
"Quality of the law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to persons detained a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of the detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland [GC], no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000).
- EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
Lastly, in cases involving extradition proceedings, the Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention where the review proceedings lasted 31 and 46 days, respectively, for two levels of jurisdiction (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, no. 9862/82 §§ 55-61, 21 October 1986), and 17 days for one level of jurisdiction (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 44, 9 January 2003). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
"Quality of the law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).
- EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95
REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
The Court observes that it has found delays of 23 days for one level of jurisdiction, and 43 days or 32 days for two levels of jurisdiction, to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4 (see, respectively, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; and G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 34-39, 30 November 2000). - EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 27426/95
G.B. v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
The Court observes that it has found delays of 23 days for one level of jurisdiction, and 43 days or 32 days for two levels of jurisdiction, to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4 (see, respectively, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; and G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 34-39, 30 November 2000). - EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96
JABLONSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
The Court observes that it has found delays of 23 days for one level of jurisdiction, and 43 days or 32 days for two levels of jurisdiction, to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4 (see, respectively, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; and G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 34-39, 30 November 2000). - EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00
KADEM v. MALTA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
Lastly, in cases involving extradition proceedings, the Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention where the review proceedings lasted 31 and 46 days, respectively, for two levels of jurisdiction (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, no. 9862/82 §§ 55-61, 21 October 1986), and 17 days for one level of jurisdiction (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 44, 9 January 2003). - EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00
ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
On the other hand, in Rokhlina v. Russia (no. 54071/00, § 79, 7 April 2005), where the total duration of the proceedings was 41 days for two levels of jurisdiction, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
"Quality of the law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04
In another Russian case (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006) the Court found delays of 36, 29 and 26 days to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4, stressing that the entire duration of the appeal proceedings was attributable to the authorities. - EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02
GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06
NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06
ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04
RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08
KURBANOV v. RUSSIA
For a recent summary of the relevant Russian law and practice on issues of extradition of foreign nationals see Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, §§ 33-48, 8 January 2009.The Court has established in a number of cases against Russia its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the rights of persons detained pending extradition in so far as the lawfulness of their detention is concerned and the availability of judicial review of such detention (see, for example, Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 77 and 88-89, 11 October 2007; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 131 and 139-140, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 115 and 122, 11 December 2008; Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).
- EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 75832/13
M.M. c. BULGARIE
Le droit à un recours juridictionnel consacré par l'article 5 § 4 et les garanties procédurales qui y sont prescrites visent à protéger l'individu contre une détention arbitraire (Khoudiakova c. Russie, no 13476/04, § 93, 8 janvier 2009) ou contre la poursuite d'une détention qui, quoique initialement ordonnée de manière régulière, a pu par la suite devenir irrégulière et perdre toute justification (Rahmani et Dineva c. Bulgarie, no 20116/08, § 78, 10 mai 2012).