Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  It reiterates that the purpose of the rule requiring domestic remedies to be exhausted is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  A civil action for damages has accordingly no bearing on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 (see, most recently, Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 55669/00, 28 October 2004; and also Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, § 79).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Panchenko, cited above § 102; Ilijkov, cited above, § 81; and Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).

• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

  In the context of an alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, this rule requires that the domestic authorities be given an opportunity to consider whether an applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time has been respected and whether there exist relevant and sufficient grounds continuing to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, for instance, Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 35, 14 December 2006, or Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 50, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulas paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 100-03, 1 March 2007; Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, §§ 40-46, 14 December 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 180-89, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30271/03

  IVAN KUZMIN v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, in accordance with the Convention institutions' case-law, where lawfulness of detention is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used because the right to have the lawfulness of detention examined by a court and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, among other authorities, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI, and mutatis mutandis, Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 34, 14 December 2006).