Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUBTSOV AND BALAYAN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

  Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 33707/14

  It was up to the national courts to dissipate any interpretational doubts regarding the rule's application (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III, Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, § 55, 17 October 2017).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 33707/14

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to replace the national authorities, which are better placed to interpret national legislation, to examine all the circumstances of a case and to take all the necessary decisions, including those in respect of detention on remand (see, for instance, Murray v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, § 66, Series A no. 300-A; Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 59, 16 January 2007; and Kotov v. Russia [GC], no. 54522/00, § 122, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 33707/14

  However, even if they did refer to or cite Article 2 § 1 of the Civil Code of Russia and its definition of a "business activity", they did not distil the constituent elements of that concept and did not compare those to the particular facts of the applicants" cases (see, by contrast, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 114, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 33707/14

  It was up to the national courts to dissipate any interpretational doubts regarding the rule's application (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-III, Navalnyye v. Russia, no. 101/15, § 55, 17 October 2017).

• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 48343/16

  BIGOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 142, 11 July 2006, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), but must contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention (see Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 179, 22 December 2008, and Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia, nos. 33707/14 and 3762/15, §§ 30-32, 10 April 2018).
• EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 7446/21

  PERSTNER c. LUXEMBOURG

  C'est essentiellement sur la base de la motivation des décisions de détention de ces juridictions internes que la Cour est appelée à décider s'il y a eu ou non violation de l'article 5 de la Convention (voir, parmi d'autres, Rubtsov et Balayan c. Russie, nos 33707/14 et 3762/15, § 30, 10 avril 2018).
• EGMR - 27055/22 (anhängig)

  BOGDANIC v. CROATIA

  33707/14 and 3762/15, §§ 34-37, 10 April 2018)?.