Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BROVCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 1603/02
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of time it no longer suffices (see, among other authorities, Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 100, 8 February 2005).

  Furthermore, the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 53084/99

  KORMACHEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  It notes that the Government did not indicate any concrete remedy that could have expedited the determination of the applicant's case or provided him with adequate redress for delays that had already occurred (see Kormacheva v. Russia, no. 53084/99, § 64, 29 January 2004).

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 22118/02

  KUZIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  Nor did the Government supply any example from domestic practice showing that, by using the means in question, it was possible for the applicant to obtain such relief (see Kudla, cited above, § 159; Kormacheva, §§ 61 and 62, 29 January 2004; and Kuzin v. Russia, no. 22118/02, §§ 42-46, 9 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  The Court first recalls that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  The Court first recalls that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  The Court recalls that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term (see, among other authorities, Corigliano v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 34, Series A no. 57, and Imbriosca v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  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 the person - 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; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Khudoyorov, cited above, § 123).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  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 the person - 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; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Khudoyorov, cited above, § 123).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

  CORIGLIANO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.12.2005 - 33914/02

  SKOROBOGATOVA v. RUSSIA