Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 41666/98

  KYRTATOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  The Court reiterates that failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law does not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 22, § 60), however Article 6 § 1 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  The Court reiterates that failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law does not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 22, § 60), however Article 6 § 1 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  In this respect the Court recalls that in certain conditions instructions, which do not themselves have the force of law, may be taken into account in assessing whether the criterion of foreseeability was satisfied (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 37, §§ 85-90).

 
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp.18-19, § 44).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  The Court recalls that the protection of Article 8 applies to more than just the traditional family (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 31).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  To determine whether an interference was in accordance with the law, the Court applies the three-fold test of foreseeability (see Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, § 26).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  Consequently, States are dispensed from answering for their acts before an international body before they have had the opportunity to put matters right through their own legal systems (see Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 571, § 33, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  The Court reiterates that it is not for the Convention bodies to cure of their own motion any shortcomings or lack of precision in the respondent Government's arguments (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 77, § 35).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  A "charge" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 can be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence" (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 73).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  Three strands in particular may be identified as running through the Court's case-law: the exhaustive nature of the exceptions, which must be interpreted strictly (e.g. Ciulla v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, § 41) and which do not allow for the broad range of justifications under other provisions (Articles 8-11 of the Convention in particular); the repeated emphasis on the lawfulness of the detention, procedurally and substantively, requiring scrupulous adherence to the rule of law (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 39); and the importance of the promptness or speediness of the requisite judicial controls (under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4) (see McKay v. the United Kingdom., judgment of 3 October 2006, § 30).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 16858/11

  URTANS v. LATVIA

  The continuous supervision should be as rigorous as the initial examination (see Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 117, 18 January 2007).

  The Court has already indicated that in principle it is the judicial orders it is called to assess when examining justification for continued detention (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 110, ECHR 2006-III (extracts), and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 122, 18 January 2007) and not the Government's posterior submissions in the absence of any domestic court rulings in this regard.

• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 17/02

  LIGERES v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 137, 18 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  ANDREY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  This principle applies a fortiori to untried prisoners who must be considered innocent by virtue of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 139, 28 November 2002; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Trosin v. Ukraine, no. 39758/05, § 39, 23 February 2012; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, §§ 60-66, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 22683/04

  F. H. gegen Deutschland

  Folglich müssen sich die Konventionsstaaten erst dann vor einem internationalen Organ für ihre Handlungen verantworten, wenn sie die Möglichkeit hatten, durch ihre eigenen Rechtssysteme Abhilfe zu schaffen ( Selmouni ./. Frankreich [GK], Nr. 25803/94, Randnr. 74, ECHR 1999-V, und Estrikh ./. Lettland , Nr. 73819/01, Randnr. 92, 18. Januar 2007).
• EGMR - 20558/04

  BUCURESTEANU c. ROUMANIE

  Le requérant Florea Bucuresteanu disposait-il de voies de recours internes efficaces au sens de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention en vue de mettre un terme à sa détention provisoire ordonnée par le jugement du 18 juillet 2006, du tribunal départemental de Dâmbovita (voir, entre autres, Estrikh c. Lettonie, no 73819/01, §§ 96-98, 18 janvier 2007, et Svipsta c. Lettonie, no 66820/01, §§ 107 et suiv., CEDH 2006-III (extraits)) ? Dans l'affirmative, quelle est la période de détention à prendre en considération sur le terrain de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention ?.
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 63748/13

  PSHIBIYEV ET BEROV c. RUSSIE

  Il s'appuie à cet égard sur la jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de droits des détenus (Silver et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 25 mars 1983, série A no 61, Boyle et Rice c. Royaume-Uni, 27 avril 1988, série A no 131, CEDH 2000-VIII, Estrikh c. Lettonie, no 73819/01, 18 janvier 2007, Piechowicz c. Pologne, no 20071/07, 17 avril 2012, et Epners-Gefners c. Lettonie, no 37862/02, 29 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  MITKUS v. LATVIA

  As regards the applicant's argument that the period of inactivity in the first-instance court had breached the time-limit provided for in Article 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 54 above), the Government noted that a failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law did not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 159, ECHR 2006-III (extracts), and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 138, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 37467/04

  DMITRIJEVS c. LETTONIE

  S'agissant de la question de savoir s'il serait opportun de rayer une partie de la présente requête du rôle sur la base de la déclaration unilatérale du gouvernement défendeur, la Cour note qu'elle a plusieurs fois constaté une violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention du fait de la durée excessive de procédures pénales en Lettonie (Lavents c. Lettonie, no 58442/00, § 104, 28 novembre 2002 ; Freimanis et Lidums c. Lettonie, nos 73443/01 et 74860/01, § 126, 9 février 2006 ; Kornakovs c. Lettonie, no 61005/00, § 130, 15 juin 2006 ; Moisejevs c. Lettonie, no 64846/01, § 142, 15 juin 2006 ; Estrikh c. Lettonie, no 73819/01, §§ 142-143, 18 janvier 2007 ; Cistiakov c. Lettonie, no 67275/01, § 81, 8 février 2007).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  LEJA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 13311/10

  LIU v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 42969/04

  ALI OSMAN ÖZMEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 11579/05

  KURGANOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 26874/08

  LAZAROVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 25769/02

  IVANOVAS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 38979/03

  KEIPENVARDECAS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02

  DAGIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 16825/02

  PLOTINA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 38449/05

  DANILOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 11800/10

  PAKHTUSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 25537/08

  KOMISSAROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 26907/09

  SLAVCHEVA v. BULGARIA