Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRIGORYEV AND IGAMBERDIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12

  CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12

  The Court reiterates that the Contracting Parties, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto (see Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, § 116, 4 April 2018).
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08

  TSVETKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12

  54381/08 and five others, § 203, 10 April 2018; Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12

  7077/06 and 12 others, § 98, 26 June 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis, Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov, cited above, § 23).
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 52241/14

  VASILEVSKIY AND BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12

  It reiterates that such an assessment should be carried out in a manner consistent with the domestic legal requirements and take into account the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V, and Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia, nos. 52241/14 and 74222/14, § 23, 10 July 2018).

• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 47784/18

  ZINCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, it reiterates that mere discontinuation of the administrative-offence proceedings in respect of the applicants, without acknowledgment and sufficient redress of violation of their conventional rights do not deprive them of a victim status (see Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970/12, §§ 21 and 23-25, 12 February 2019).
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 44850/18

  KIRPICHEV (KIRPICHENKO) AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 115-31, 10 April 2018, and Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019, as to various aspects of unlawful deprivation of liberty of organisers or participants of public assemblies; Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970/12, 12 February 2019, about inadequate redress for unlawful deprivation of liberty in the context of administrative-offence prosecution for participation in public events; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 58-85, 20 September 2016, concerning the absence of a prosecuting party in the proceedings under the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO); Gankin and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 75231/17

  YURGILEVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The law also required that such escorting and detention be an "exceptional case" and necessary for the prompt and proper examination of the alleged administrative case or to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed (see, for example, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, § 71, 15 November 2018, and Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 63-65, 13 February 2018), that any deprivation of liberty be properly documented (see Kalyapin v. Russia, no. 6095/09, § 76, 23 July 2019, and Timishev v. Russia [Committee], no. 47598/08, § 21, 28 November 2017), that the compensation granted, when the domestic court finds the deprivation of liberty unlawful, be adequate, in accordance with the Court's practice (see Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970/12, 12 February 2019), and that a delay in implementing a decision to release a detainee that exceeds some hours is incompatible with the Convention requirements (see Butkevich, cited above, § 67).