Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1-c No violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violations of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 63486/00

  POSOKHOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  Therefore, the domestic law in that respect had been complied with (unlike the situation in the cases of Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, ECHR 2003-IV, and Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, 13 April 2006).

  The Court reiterates that it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in other Russian cases in which it had been established that the selection of lay judges had been conducted contrary to the requirements of the Lay Judges Act (see Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2003-IV; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/05, §§ 38-44, 13 April 2006; Shabanov and Tren v. Russia, no. 5433/02, §§ 28-32, 14 December 2006; and, most recently, Barashkova v. Russia, no. 26716/03, §§ 30-34, 29 April 2008).

• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 5433/02

  SHABANOV AND TREN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  The Court reiterates that it has found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in other Russian cases in which it had been established that the selection of lay judges had been conducted contrary to the requirements of the Lay Judges Act (see Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2003-IV; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/05, §§ 38-44, 13 April 2006; Shabanov and Tren v. Russia, no. 5433/02, §§ 28-32, 14 December 2006; and, most recently, Barashkova v. Russia, no. 26716/03, §§ 30-34, 29 April 2008).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  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 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  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, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  Until his conviction the accused must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 30, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  For a summary of domestic law provisions on pre-trial detention and time-limits for trial see Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 76-96, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 99 et seq.; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 42523/16

  NAGABAS AND KARPENKO v. UKRAINE

  As the Court has held previously, a decision or measure favourable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for instance, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012; see also, concerning Article 5 of the Convention, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 50, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  Il indique en outre que les conditions de sa détention à la maison d'arrêt no IZ-47/1 étaient similaires à celles décrites dans les arrêts Gorbulya c. Russie (no 31535/09, 6 mars 2014), Popandopulo c. Russie (no 4512/09, 10 mai 2011) et Moskovets c. Russie (no 14370/03, 23 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for instance, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012; see also, concerning Article 5 of the Convention, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 50, 23 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 6858/11

  DELIJORGJI v. ALBANIA

  Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention covers the former and paragraph 5 of Article 5 the latter (see, for example, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 51, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 50423/08

  GHAVALYAN v. ARMENIA

  Furthermore, even if the Court of Cassation, in its decision of 28 November 2008, appears to have acknowledged - if not explicitly, then at least in substance - the Convention violation in issue (see paragraph 40 above), no compensation was - or even could be - awarded to the applicant for the breach of her Convention right, in view of the absence of non-pecuniary damage as a form of compensation at the material time (see Khachatryan and Others v. Armenia, no. 23978/06, § 158, 27 November 2012; and, mutatis mutandis, Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria, no. 74012/01, § 41, 6 November 2008; Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 50, 23 April 2009; and S.T.S. v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 61287/12

  COVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012; see also, concerning Article 5 of the Convention, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 50, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 16.09.2022 - 62209/17

  VADYM MELNYK v. UKRAINE

  A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of his or her status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for instance, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012; see also, concerning Article 5 of the Convention, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, § 50, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 47156/16

  KLINKEL v. GERMANY

  Hierfür wäre eine angemessene Entschädigung für den immateriellen Schaden erforderlich (siehe Scordino./. Italien (Nr. 1) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36813/97, Rdnr. 202, ECHR 2006-V; Moskovets./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 14370/03, Rdnr. 50, 23.
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05

  URAZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that it has repeatedly found violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, §§ 62-65, 23 April 2009) or without indicating any particular reason for the decision to maintain a custodial measure or setting a specific time-limit for the continued detention or for a periodic review of the preventive measure (see Strelets v. Russia, no. 28018/05, §§ 71-73, 6 November 2012, with extensive further references).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  YEGORYCHEV v. RUSSIA

  38697/02 and 14711/03, §§ 34-38, 8 January 2009; and Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, §§ 96-101, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 75911/01

  PETR SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 7427/06

  DIMOV v. RUSSIA