Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,15727
EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15727)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.01.2012 - 11778/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15727)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Januar 2012 - 11778/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,15727)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15727) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05
    Failure to make a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person carrying it out must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

    DAYANAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05
    In this regard the Court notes that in the case of Dayanan v. Turkey (no. 7377/03, §§ 31-33, ECHR 2009-...) it found that it is problematic to deprive a pre-trial detainee of legal representation, even if during the relevant period he or she does not make any statements that are later used to convict him or her.
  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 31814/03

    HOVANESIAN c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05
    Regard should also be had to the fact that the conclusions in Dayanan case were made in view of the legislative restrictions on access to a lawyer at that stage of the proceedings (see also, mutatis mutandis, Hovanesian v. Bulgaria, no. 31814/03, § 37, 21 December 2010 and Zdravko Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 20024/04, § 47, 23 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 23.06.2011 - 20024/04

    ZDRAVKO PETROV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05
    Regard should also be had to the fact that the conclusions in Dayanan case were made in view of the legislative restrictions on access to a lawyer at that stage of the proceedings (see also, mutatis mutandis, Hovanesian v. Bulgaria, no. 31814/03, § 37, 21 December 2010 and Zdravko Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 20024/04, § 47, 23 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 12.05.2017 - 21980/04

    SIMEONOVI c. BULGARIE

    The Government failed to present the applicant with his order of arrest and to inform him of his defence rights upon arrest (see judgment, § 127), to assign him a lawyer upon arrest (see judgment, § 101), to promptly notify his parents of his detention, and to keep proper records of his custody.[8] Failure by a State to keep proper records in relation to the events surrounding an accused's detention, the reasons for it, and its duration, as well as regarding whether the accused was duly notified of his defence rights upon arrest has been held by this Court to constitute a violation of Article 5 (see Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 45, 19 January 2012, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III).[9].

    It discloses a most grave violation of that provision and is incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 45, 19 January 2012; and Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 125, Reports 1998-III).

  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

    FORTALNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for his detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin, cited above, §§ 81-84; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 19181/09

    SÎRGHI c. ROUMANIE

    Compte tenu de l'enchainement des événements, la Cour estime que la présence du requérant au siège de la police s'apparente plutôt à un interrogatoire d'un suspect qu'à une collecte d'informations (voir, a contrario, Smolik v Ukraine, no 11778/05, § 54, 19 janvier 2012) ou un contrôle routier sans limites remarquables de la liberté d´action du requérant (voir, a contrario, Aleksandr Zaichenko c. Russie, no 39660/02, §§ 47-48, 18 février 2010).
  • EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 18322/05

    DENISENKO v. RUSSIA

    The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see, among others, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; Aleksandr Sokolov v. Russia, no. 20364/05, 4 November 2010, §§ 70-73; Ivan Kuzmin v. Russia, no. 30271/03, §§ 81-84, 25 November 2010; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 46-48, 19 January 2012; Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, §§ 75-78, 15 November 2012; Venskute v. Lithuania, no. 10645/08, § 80, 11 December 2012; Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia, no. 47837/06, §§ 35-36, 18 September 2014; Nagiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 16499/09, §§ 57 and 64, 23 April 2015; and Birulev and Shishkin v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR - 54271/12 (anhängig)

    ACHILOV AND IVANOV v. RUSSIA

    Were there violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Achilov on account of: (i) the delay in compiling the arrest record, in breach of Article 92 of the CCrP and the unrecorded deprivation of liberty until noon on 21 February 2012; (ii) the consequent absence of any legal basis for Mr Achilov's detention from 8.30 p.m. on 22 February until when the detention order was issued on 23 February 2012; (iii) the impact of the above deficiencies, together with the issue under Article 108 § 1.1 of the CCrP, on the legality of the ensuing period(s) of the applicant's detention pending investigation (cf. Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 46, 19 January 2012)?.
  • EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 8865/06

    LOBODA v. UKRAINE

    Having assessed the above facts in the light of the principles established in its case-law (see, in particular, Salduz, cited above, no. 36391/02, §§ 54-57, ECHR 2008; Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, §§ 54-55, 19 January 2012; mutatis mutandis, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 182-188, ECHR 2010; and compare with Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, §§ 84-86, 11 December 2008; and Todorov v. Ukraine, no. 16717/05, §§ 78-81, 12 January 2012), the Court considers that the applicant has failed to provide the necessary substantiation for his allegation that the statements made by him on 6 June 2001 were, in fact, used for his conviction or that they had otherwise affected the conclusions ultimately reached by the domestic judicial authorities concerning his guilt.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht