Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASENIN v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VASENIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  The Court reiterates that subparagraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, inter alia, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 49, ECHR 2000-III; and Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 96, Series A no. 39).

  It must also be established that his or her detention during the relevant period was in conformity with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and that it was devoid of arbitrariness (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 62960/00

  ANTOINE contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  In this connection, they referred to the cases of Antoine v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 62960/00, ECHR 2003) and Kerr v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 63356/00, 23 September 2003).
• EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 63356/00

  KERR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  In this connection, they referred to the cases of Antoine v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 62960/00, ECHR 2003) and Kerr v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 63356/00, 23 September 2003).

 
• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  However, where proceedings involve an assessment of the personality and character of the accused and his or her state of mind at the time of the offence and where their outcome could be of major detriment to him or her, it is essential to the fairness of the proceedings that he or she be present at the hearing and afforded the opportunity to participate in it together with his or her counsel (see Pobornikoff v. Austria, no. 28501/95, § 31, 3 October 2000; Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 71-73, Reports 1997-VII; and Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 67, Series A no. 268-B).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  The Court reiterates that subparagraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, inter alia, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 49, ECHR 2000-III; and Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 96, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  The Court further rejects the Government's non-exhaustion plea as, in accordance with the Court's consistent approach, supervisory review in the criminal cases could not be regarded as "an effective remedy" and, accordingly, the applicant could not be required to resort to it (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  The Court lastly reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of a fair trial (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  The competent national authorities are required under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention to intervene only if a failure by legal-aid counsel to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168, and Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II).
• EGMR, 18.05.1999 - 28972/95

  NINN-HANSEN c. DANEMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  The trial court may exceptionally continue hearings where the accused is absent on account of illness, provided that his or her interests are sufficiently protected (see Ninn-Hansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 28972/95, p. 351, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06

  It is of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at first instance and on appeal (see Lala v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A, and Pelladoah v. the Netherlands, 22 September 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-B).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 15312/89

  G. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 56126/17

  YEDIGARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 47, ECHR 2003 IV; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004 II; and Vasenin v. Russia, no. 48023/06, § 108, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 4693/12

  MKHITARYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-IV; and Vasenin v. Russia, no. 48023/06, § 108, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  VARDAN MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-IV; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; and Vasenin v. Russia, no. 48023/06, § 108, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 28506/15

  HAMAZASPYAN AND SAFARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 47, ECHR 2003-IV; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II; and Vasenin v. Russia, no. 48023/06, § 108, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR - 20006/17 (anhängig)

  M.V. v. RUSSIA

  Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? The parties are invited to submit their observations in this respect having regard to the Court's conclusions in Antoine v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 62960/00, 13 May 2003), and Vasenin v. Russia (no. 48023/06, § 130, 21 June 2016).