Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 45100/98
• EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 45100/98
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  It ends with the day on which a charge is finally determined or the proceedings are discontinued (see, among many authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 124, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  In particular, applicants cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in their defence (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  The Court first recalls that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97

  BARFUSS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  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, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43).

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Starting with the Kalashnikov judgment in 2002, the Court has to date found a violation of the obligation to guarantee a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, in more than eighty cases against Russia where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and employing the same stereotyped formulae, without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Mamedova, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  En outre, la continuation de la détention ne saurait servir à anticiper sur une peine privative de liberté (Letellier c. France, 26 juin 1991, § 51, série A no 207 ; voir aussi Panchenko c. Russie, no 45100/98, § 102, 8 février 2005 ; Goral c. Pologne, no 38654/97, § 68, 30 octobre 2003 ; et Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, § 81, 26 juillet 2001).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Nor can it be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 66, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; and Letellier, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51; also see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).

  46133/99 and 48183/99, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, 20 October 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  BROVCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices (see, among other authorities, Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 100, 8 February 2005).

  Furthermore, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulas paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 100-03, 1 March 2007; Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, §§ 40-46, 14 December 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 180-89, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.

  The fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the authorities (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 132).

• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formula paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, Mamedova and Khudoyorov cases cited above, and also Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In exercising its function on this point, the Court has to ensure that the domestic courts" arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), but contain references to specific facts and the personal circumstances justifying an applicant's detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 107, 8 February 2005).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

  NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 33374/10

  MEHDI TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 15911/08

  GEISTERFER v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  TSARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 52048/16

  HYSA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

  PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04

  MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 37498/14

  KUC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02

  ISAYEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 9536/10

  FEDORIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 41169/02

  KONONOVICH v. RUSSIA