Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (28)

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The Court therefore finds that these two periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").

  The Court shares the Government's view that there has been no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 96, 21 March 2002, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 221, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).

  The Court therefore finds that these two periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").

• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  In particular, regard must be had to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, etc. (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).

  While the court does not lose sight of the fact that it took the trial court approximately a year and a half to examine the applicant's case, it reiterates that the right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must not hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out their tasks with proper care (see among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 42, Series A no. 254-A).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The detention of a person for several months on the sole ground that the case has been transmitted to the court cannot be considered 'lawful' within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and is in itself incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the common threads of the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 54-57, ECHR 2000-III; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2000-IX).".

  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, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The detention of a person for several months on the sole ground that the case has been transmitted to the court cannot be considered 'lawful' within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and is in itself incompatible with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the common threads of the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 54-57, ECHR 2000-III; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2000-IX).".

  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, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The Court therefore finds that these two periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 47679/99

  STASAITIS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The Court shares the Government's view that there has been no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 96, 21 March 2002, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 221, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  The applicant, relying on the Court's findings in the case of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, ECHR 2004-II), submitted that his detention had lacked any basis and had been arbitrary and unlawful.
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

  GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court shares the Government's view that there has been no causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, § 96, 21 March 2002; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 221, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, § 172, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 61744/11

  N.G. c. RUSSIE

  Les autres dispositions pertinentes en l'espèce, relatives à la détention provisoire, sont exposées dans l'arrêt Isayev c. Russie (no 20756/04, §§ 67-76, 22 octobre 2009).
• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 48599/17

  DIGAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  There is nothing in the material submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the courts dealing with the matter (see, for similar reasoning, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 102-10, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38-48, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 153-56, 22 October 2009).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 77755/16

  LUZHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 33595/18

  PARSHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 09.09.2021 - 69168/17

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 16070/12

  CHERTENKOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).