Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PYATKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Violation of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pyatkov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  Where such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A; and Bykov, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  As the Court has previously observed, the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of criminal activities may be accepted as the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  Continued detention therefore can be justified in a given case 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 laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 30, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  Continued detention therefore can be justified in a given case 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 laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 30, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  Where such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A; and Bykov, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  The opportunity for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  Although it is not always necessary for a procedure under Article 5 § 4 to be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  As the Court has previously observed, the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of criminal activities may be accepted as the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37 and 38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  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 Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2000-III, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  In determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir déjà trouvé que l'absence d'indication de la date limite précise du terme d'une détention au moment du placement de la personne en détention provisoire ou bien au moment de la prorogation de celle-ci conformément aux articles 100, 108, 109 et 255 du CPP était contraire aux dispositions du CPP russe telles qu'interprétées par la Cour constitutionnelle de la Fédération de Russie (Roman Petrov c. Russie, no 37311/08, § 44, 15 décembre 2015, Pyatkov c. Russie, no 61767/08, § 95, 13 novembre 2012, Fedorenko c. Russie, précité, §§ 52-57).
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 40834/11

  KALINICHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Certaines dispositions du droit interne concernant le placement et le maintien en détention provisoire d'une personne accusée d'une infraction pénale sont résumées dans les arrêts Fedorenko c. Russie (no 39602/05, §§ 29-37, 20 septembre 2011) et Pyatkov c. Russie (no 61767/08, §§ 48-67, 13 novembre 2012).