Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,55076
EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55076)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.12.2012 - 57319/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55076)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Dezember 2012 - 57319/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55076)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55076) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (16)

  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

    AMIROV v. RUSSIA

    While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

    TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes that there is nothing in the material submitted to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov, cited above; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012; and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

    KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

    While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

    LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

    (1) the risk of absconding, based on the severity of punishment that the applicant was facing, his lack of strong social ties, and his connections abroad (see also Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012);.
  • EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

    KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    By way of comparison, the Court has previously given weight to the Russian authorities" reliance on the gravity of certain offences, such as kidnapping compounded with extortion (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014), or multiple aggravated gang kidnapping associated with extortion, robbery and possession and trafficking of firearms (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 7 and 98, 5 February 2015), or aggravated fraud by an organised group (see Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 6 and 40, 18 December 2012), or an organised aggravated murder (see Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, §§ 10 and 104, 27 November 2014), or an organised aggravated assault causing injuries of four and one death (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 103, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

    SERGEY DENISOV v. RUSSIA

    There is nothing in the materials submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012, and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 38415/13

    NENAD KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

    It therefore follows that the domestic courts appropriately examined the possibility of releasing the applicant and provided convincing and detailed reasons for refusing to release him and to apply an alternative preventive measure (compare Shabani v. Switzerland, no. 29044/06, § 63, 5 November 2009; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 45, 18 December 2012; and, by contrast, Idalov, cited above, § 148; and Orban v. Croatia, no. 56111/12, § 60, 19 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 60316/08

    KOCHNEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 57426/14

    DVORETSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Having examined all the material before it, the Court notes that, given the relatively short duration of the applicant's detention (which lasted slightly longer than five months), the existence of a reasonable suspicion of the applicant's involvement in a violent offence against a State official and the existence of a serious risk of his re-offending, absconding or interfering with justice, given his criminal history of violent offences against the judiciary and the pattern of his behaviour, including a breach of non-custodial measure in separate criminal proceedings, it cannot be said that the domestic courts had failed to duly consider all relevant factors or that they did not give "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons to justify the applicant's detention, or that they failed to display "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 49507/10

    DUDNICHENKO AND WAES v. RUSSIA

    The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012 and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 2091/11

    ELKSNIT AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 33641/17

    SUKHYNIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 46427/16

    SADRIYEV AND DEMIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 57410/16

    PAVLOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 34550/08

    BEZRUKOV AND SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 48073/13

    KOVESHNIKOV v. LITHUANIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht