Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAHIN ÇAGDAS v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (12)

• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 41970/11

  SHCHERBINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and ÇaÄŸdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  LELYUK v. UKRAINE

  The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore arises only if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, for example, Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008, and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 09.09.2021 - 69168/17

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Remaining complaints As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention lodged by Ms Trukhina (application no. 4638/19), the Court reiterates that the right to compensation under the said Article arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 17181/09

  LESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 41509/06

  STADNIK v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and ÇaÄ?das Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 7335/09

  ORLOV v. RUSSIA

  As regards the complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the Court reiterates at the outset that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagda?? ??ahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 50650/16

  SHAKIRZYANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagda?? ??ahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 38372/13

  ALIVORYAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates at the outset that the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of its other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 32013/07

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a right to compensation under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention arises if a breach of one of the Article's other four paragraphs has been established, directly or in substance, either by the Court or by the domestic courts (see, among many other authorities, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012; Svetoslav Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 55861/00, § 76, 7 February 2008; and Çagdas Sahin v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, § 34, 11 April 2006).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 40025/10

  LAGUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 40151/14

  TARKHANOV v. RUSSIA