Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIDORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 10511/10

  MURRAY c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  Where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, the Court has accepted that the next of kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, and Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 16499/09

  NAGIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008; and Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  Where the applicant has died after the application was lodged, the Court has accepted that the next of kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014, and Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 14850/03

  MATYUSH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal system in such a way that their law-enforcement authorities can meet the obligation to avoid unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 93, 28 June 2007, and Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, § 73, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002-IV; Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008; and Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  The Court reiterates in this connection that it must scrutinise complaints of delays in the release of detainees with particular vigilance (see Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 80, 30 January 2003).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal system in such a way that their law-enforcement authorities can meet the obligation to avoid unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 93, 28 June 2007, and Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, § 73, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  However, the national authorities must attempt to keep it to a minimum (see Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, § 25 in fine, Reports, 1997-IV; K.-F. v. Germany, 27 November 1997, § 71, Reports, 1997-VII; and Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-IX).