Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.O. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  G.O. v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant also has to be taken into consideration (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  Finally, the Court observes that throughout the criminal proceedings against him the applicant was held in detention and that fact required particular diligence on the part of the domestic courts to administer justice expeditiously (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  Although it is not always necessary for the procedure under Article 5 § 4 to be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  The opportunity for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B).

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and G.O. v Russia, § 77, no. 39249/03, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

  ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The complaint relating to the absence from a remand hearing is also based on well-established case-law of the Court (see G.O. v. Russia, no. 39249/03, §§ 93-97, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  PENARANDA SOTO v. MALTA

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and G.O. v Russia, no. 39249/03, § 77, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08

  PANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where the domestic courts for various reasons omitted to conduct a judicial review of applicants" detention pending trial (see Sadretdinov v. Russia, no. 17564/06, §§ 88-95, 24 May 2016; G.O. v. Russia, no. 39249/03, §§ 98-101, 18 October 2011; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, §§ 104-05, 28 June 2011; Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia, no. 1606/02, §§ 93-100, 23 April 2009; Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 161-63, 9 October 2008; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 122-24, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bednov v. Russia, no. 21153/02, §§ 29-34, 1 June 2006).