Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  In the absence of any explicit reasons given by the authorities for detaining him for more than three hours, the Court considers that his detention was unlawful (see, for similar reasoning, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, § 150, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).

  In Frumkin v. Russia (no. 74568/12, § 149, ECHR 2016) the Court, dealing with a complaint similar to the present, also against Russia, noted "that the duration of administrative detention should not, as a general rule, exceed three hours, which is an indication of the period of time the law regards as reasonable and sufficient for drawing up an administrative offence report".

• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 25691/04

  BUKTA ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  In particular, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  "To hold otherwise would not be reconcilable with the text of Article 5 § 1 which sets out an exhaustive list (see the Engel and Others judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 24, para. 57, and the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 74, para. 194) of exceptions calling for a narrow interpretation (see, mutatis mutandis, the Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, para. 42, and the Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 41, para. 65).

 
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  In particular, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 46086/07

  K.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, the application in so far as lodged in respect of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, §§ 29-30, 29 April 2010; Erisen and Others v. Turkey, no. 7067/06, §§ 29-30, 3 April 2012; and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 91, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7067/06

  ERISEN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, the application in so far as lodged in respect of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, §§ 29-30, 29 April 2010; Erisen and Others v. Turkey, no. 7067/06, §§ 29-30, 3 April 2012; and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 91, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08

  FÁBER v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  In particular, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 34202/06

  BERLADIR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  In particular, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  In particular, where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence the Court has required that the public authorities show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance (see Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 42, ECHR 2006-XIV; Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, § 34, ECHR 2007-III; Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, § 49, 24 July 2012; Berladir and Others v. Russia, no. 34202/06, § 38, 10 July 2012; Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, §§ 136-37, 30 May 2013; and Kasparov and Others, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  Neither would it be in conformity with the object and purpose of Article 5 § 1, namely to ensure that no one should be dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see the Lawless judgment of 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3, p. 52, and the above-mentioned Engel and Others judgment, p. 25, para. 58).".
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  H.M. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 21727/08

  POST v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 53913/15

  BORISOVA 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; 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); Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, §§ 48-51, 13 December 2016, relating to the unfairness of the proceedings under the CAO due to the inability to present evidence supporting the assembly participant's version of events; Elvira Dmitriyeva v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).

  29580/12 and 4 others, 2 February 2017;[45] and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016.

• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

  ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  En outre, l'application de la disposition litigieuse était non seulement susceptible de dissuader les personnes pénalement responsables d'exercer à nouveau les droits que leur confèrent les articles 10 et 11 de la Convention, mais elle était également très susceptible de dissuader d'autres membres du public d'assister à des manifestations et, plus généralement, de participer à un débat politique ouvert (voir, mutatis mutandis, Huseynli et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 67360/11 et 2 autres, § 99, 11 février 2016 ; Süleyman Çelebi et autres c. Turquie, nos 37273/10 et 17 autres, § 134, 24 mai 2016 ; et Kasparov et autres c. Russie (no 2), no 51988/07, § 32, 13 décembre 2016, 1?Ÿikirik, précité, § 69).

 
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 23199/17

  Türkische Journalisten aufgrund von Spekulationen festgenommen

  In Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2) (no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016), where the Court stated that "the applicants" arrest and administrative detention had the effect of preventing and discouraging them and others from participating in protest rallies and actively engaging in opposition politics" (in violation of Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1 and 11), it nonetheless held that "[i]n view of this" (this?!), the examination of the alleged violation of Article 18 was "not necessary" (§ 55; emphasis added).
• EGMR - 73383/17 (anhängig)

  MOCHALOV v. RUSSIA and17 other applications

  6 (1) - unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings - inability to adduce exonerating evidence, including video recordings, to question defence witnesses and obtain expert opinion in the administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO, final decision on 13/09/2021 by the Moscow City Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07,.
• EGMR - 78686/17 (anhängig)

  VASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016; Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 9867/06

  PODKORYTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  18255/10 and 5 others, 9 April 2019, concerning poor conditions of transport of detainees; Zadumov v. Russia, no. 2257/12, 12 December 2017, Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, 13 December 2016, and Gryaznov v. Russia, no. 19673/03, 12 June 2012, concerning unfair court proceedings in view of the lack of practical opportunities to adduce evidence in support of applicant's version of events, including by questioning defence witnesses, or given the court's failure to address the decisive argument and to motivate the decision accordingly; Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.
• EGMR - 74343/17 (anhängig)

  VALKOVICH v. RUSSIA

  - Was the applicant afforded the opportunity to plead his case in the domestic courts, in particular to submit additional evidence or to call defence witnesses (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, §§ 48-51, 13 December 2016)?.