Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MELNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 24552/02
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  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).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  The Court considers that, although these grounds might be relevant and sufficient at initial stages of investigation, the mere reiteration thereof at later stages of investigation without scrupulous examination of evolving circumstances could not be sufficient to justify the applicant's continued detention (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 69-71, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  They further noted that according to the Court's case-law the principal grounds for detention besides reasonable suspicion are the danger of absconding, the risk of collusion and the need to prevent the accused committing further offences (see W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 14, § 31).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  However, the danger of flight necessarily decreases with the passage of time spent in detention (Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 39, § 10).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  Arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  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).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  Under the Court's case-law, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, e.g., the Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV.
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  The Government noted, referring to Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 24, § 10, that the reasonableness of continued detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features.

• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2005-X; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 26627/05

  KARIMBAYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005 X).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 47230/11

  BOGOSYAN v. RUSSIA

  It held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 144-151; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III).