Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  Partly admissible partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  Nor, in countries where the law is codified, can the organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities, although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 98, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  IGLESIAS GIL ET A.U.I. c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  At the same time, the Court also reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, and in particular the courts of first instance and appeal, to construe and apply the domestic law (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 61, ECHR 2003-V; and Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  At the same time, the Court also reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, and in particular the courts of first instance and appeal, to construe and apply the domestic law (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 61, ECHR 2003-V; and Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X).

 
• EGMR, 15.03.2005 - 38704/03

  VEERMAE c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  The Court should be able to detect instances of manifest arbitrariness (see Veermae v. Finland (dec.), no. 38704/03, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2006 - 29458/04

  SOKURENKO AND STRYGUN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  Therefore, as a matter of principle, a breach by a court of rules on competence ratione personae, ratione materiae etc. may entail a violation of Article 6 § 1 under the head of the requirement "established by law" (see Sokurenko and Strygun v. Ukraine, nos. 29458/04 and 29465/04, §§ 22 et seq., 20 July 2006).
• EKMR, 16.05.1977 - 7360/76

  ZAND v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  The Court recalls that according to its case-law, the object of the term "established by law" in Article 6 of the Convention is to ensure "that the judicial organisation in a democratic society does not depend on the discretion of the executive, but that it is regulated by law emanating from Parliament" (see Zand v. Austria, application no. 7360/76, report of the Commission of 12 October 1978, D.R. 15, p. 70).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  The Court has confirmed that Article 5 § 1 (a) must be taken to have left the Contracting States a discretion in the matters of implementation of the detention "after conviction" (see Monnell and Morris judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115, § 47).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  Having analysed the domestic legislation on colony-settlements (see above) the Court concludes that, despite its relative lenience, that form of criminal sanction still amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  However, the logic of the system of safeguard established by the Convention sets limits on the scope of the review by the Court of the internal "lawfulness" (Kemmache v. France (no. 3), judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, § 37).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  At the same time, the Court also reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, and in particular the courts of first instance and appeal, to construe and apply the domestic law (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 61, ECHR 2003-V; and Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA