Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68819
EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68819)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.07.2009 - 2737/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68819)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Juli 2009 - 2737/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68819)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68819) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    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, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

    BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    That did not happen in the present case (see, for similar reasoning, Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, §§ 78-80, 7 February 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 95-104, 4 October 2005; and Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, §§ 68-71, 6 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    That did not happen in the present case (see, for similar reasoning, Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, §§ 78-80, 7 February 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 95-104, 4 October 2005; and Patsuria v. Georgia, no. 30779/04, §§ 68-71, 6 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

    VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 8-83, 3 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

    SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 8-83, 3 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
    Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • 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, 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, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

    CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

    In particular, the Court has held that the absence of any grounds given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific limit on the duration of that detention would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see also Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 112-14, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 112-14, 23 April 2009; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 79-81, 24 May 2007; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht