Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No 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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  The Court notes that, had the applicants" detention been based solely on the seriousness of the crimes they had allegedly committed, the legality of their detention would have been open to doubt (compare, with similar reasoning, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, §§ 48-50, Series A no. 33, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 114-16, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  The second applicant alleged that in that respect his case was comparable to that of Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, §§ 62-69, ECHR 2004-IV), in which the Court had examined a similar provision contained in Article 90 of the former RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure and had found a corresponding violation of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  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 people - 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 Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05

  The Court notes that, had the applicants" detention been based solely on the seriousness of the crimes they had allegedly committed, the legality of their detention would have been open to doubt (compare, with similar reasoning, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, §§ 48-50, Series A no. 33, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 114-16, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  35919/05 and 3346/06, §§ 56-57, 14 June 2016).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 18322/05

  DENISENKO v. RUSSIA

  35919/05 and 3346/06, §§ 56-57, 14 June 2016).