Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Poghosyan v. Armenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  The Court notes that similar but not identical situations have been previously examined in a number of other cases (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius, cited above, §§ 57-64; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-151, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  Even flaws in the detention order do not necessarily render the underlying period of detention unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see, Benham, cited above, §§ 42-47, and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 5 § 4 enshrines, as does Article 6 § 1, the right of access to a court, which can only be subject to reasonable limitations that do not impair its very essence (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 82-90, ECHR 2003-I (extracts), and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 70, 13 November 2008).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  The expressions "lawful" and "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  The Court notes that similar but not identical situations have been previously examined in a number of other cases (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius, cited above, §§ 57-64; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-151, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  Nevertheless, a State which institutes such a system must in principle accord detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance (see Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 84, Series A no. 224; Rutten v. the Netherlands, no. 32605/96, § 53, 24 July 2001; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, § 42, 31 January 2002; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  This Article places the judge or the judicial officer under the obligation of hearing himself the individual brought before him (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34).

• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  MINASYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has already examined an identical complaint in other cases against Armenia, in which it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant's detention was not based on a court decision and was therefore unlawful within the meaning of that provision (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 56-64, 20 December 2011; Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 79-82, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, § 60-63, 26 June 2012; and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, § 74-77, 2 October 2012).

  The Court notes that it has already examined similar complaints in cases against Armenia, in which it held that a denial of judicial review of the applicant's detention on the sole ground that the criminal case was no longer considered to be in its pre-trial stage was an unjustified restriction of his right to take proceedings under Article 5 § 4 (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 78-81, 20 December 2011 and Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 125-127, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 10.03.2016 - 33376/07

  PIRUZYAN AGAINST ARMENIA

  Noting moreover that the general measures to remedy the violations of article 5, paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 in the Piruzyan case concerning the applicant's detention on remand will continue to be supervised in the Poghosyan group (Application No. 44068/07);.
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 33050/18

  GHAZARYAN AND BAYRAMYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  The Court notes that it examined domestic legislation apparently formulated in a similar manner to that applied in the instant case, in the case of Poghosyan v. Armenia (no. 44068/07, §§ 56-64, 20 December 2011), and concluded that the detention at issue in that case had been unlawful.
• EGMR, 18.10.2018 - 46245/08

  AYVAZYAN v. ARMENIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic provisions see the judgments in the cases of Poghosyan v. Armenia (no. 44068/07, §§ 26-41, 20 December 2011) and Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 629/11, §§ 30-32, 20 October 2016).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 45743/09

  MEDVEDEVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Russie, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation du droit d'être traduit aussitôt devant un juge et de la détention illégale (voir, par exemple, Poghosyan c. Arménie, no 44068/07, §§ 69-71, 20 décembre 2011, Ladent c. Pologne, no 11036/03, §§ 71-76, 18 mars 2008, Harkmann c. Estonie, no 2192/03, §§ 30-40, 11 juillet 2006 ; Garabaïev c. Russie, no 38411/02, § 101, 7 juin 2007, et Foursenko c. Russie, no 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 avril 2008).