Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OVSJANNIKOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ovsjannikov v. Estonia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  OVSJANNIKOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12
• EGMR, 16.09.2015 - 1346/12

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a person's detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to his or her lawyer (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 47, ECHR 2001-I, and Garcia Alva, cited above, § 42).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Equality of arms is not ensured if the applicant, or his counsel, is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, among other authorities, Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 124, 9 July 2009; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-III (extracts); Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I; and Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, McKay, cited above, § 44; Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207; and YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Continued detention can therefore be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among others, Bykov, cited above, § 62; McKay, cited above, § 42; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Where full disclosure is not possible, Article 5 § 4 requires that the difficulties this causes are counterbalanced in such a way that the individual still has a possibility effectively to challenge the allegations against him (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 203, 17 April 2012, with further reference to A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 205, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  It normally also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 142, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012, and Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at the trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at the trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, McKay, cited above, § 44; Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207; and YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI