Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIYAZOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  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) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV), the Court considers it reasonable to award the amount claimed.
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  Although the number of days taken by the relevant proceedings is obviously an important element, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed (see Merie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 664/05, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  The proceedings by which the applicant's detention was extended amounted to a form of periodic review of a judicial character (see, in so far as relevant, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  However, where an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been instituted, the decisions on the lawfulness of detention must follow at "reasonable intervals" (see, among others, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, §§ 75 and 77, Series A no. 244, and Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, § 42, 21 June 2005).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  MALOFEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, it cannot be considered on the basis of the available material that the ensuing period of detention was tainted by any irregularities or arbitrariness, which were comparably serious as those identified by the Court in the cases of Menesheva or Tsirlis and Kouloumpas (see also, by way of comparison, Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, §§ 175-186, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 82348/17

  D.S. v. ARMENIA

  The Court therefore concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, the period of twenty-eight days in examining the applicant's appeal against his detention decision of 1 September 2017 was excessive because the delays were mostly attributable to the domestic authorities (compare Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 127, 29 July 2010; and Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 163, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  L'absence de toute base légale à la détention sur une période longue est incompatible avec le principe de la protection contre l'arbitraire consacré par l'article 5 § 1 (Stepanov c. Russie, no 33872/05, § 73, 25 septembre 2012, Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, § 135 in fine, CEDH 2005-X (extraits), et Niyazov c. Russie, no 27843/11, § 124, 16 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 43009/10

  AKHADOV v. SLOVAKIA

  All in all, regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, no. 55263/00, §§ 44 and 45, 9 January 2003; Abidov, cited above, §§ 60-63; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, §§ 155-164, 16 October 2012; and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 227-237, ECHR 2013, the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the applicant's application dated 13 July 2007 was not determined "speedily".