Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FURSENKO v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 26386/02
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  Having regard to such duration and to the fact that the examination of the applicant's request did not involve consideration of particularly complex issues (see Baranowski, cited above, § 72), and in view of the other relevant circumstances of the case and its well-established case-law (see, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII), the Court considers that the applicant's request for release was not examined "speedily" as required by Article 5 § 4.
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law are clearly defined and that the law itself is 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, cited above, § 56, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

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

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  The Court reiterates that, where an applicant dies during the examination of a case, his or her heirs or next of kin may in principle pursue the application on his or her behalf (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  Referring to the case of Smirnova v. Russia (nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 58-61, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)), the applicant argued that the domestic courts" decisions to remand him in custody between 14 April 2001 and 14 February 2003 had not been based on any of the reasons accepted by the Court for refusing bail, such as the risk that, if released, he would fail to appear for trial, take action to prejudice the administration of justice or commit further offences.
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  Inasmuch as the Government may be understood to be arguing that the applicant had been detained on the ground that the criminal case against him had been referred to the trial court, the Court observes that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 1 in a number of cases concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment has been lodged with the court competent to try the case (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2005-X; Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-58; and Jecius, cited above, §§ 60-64).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  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, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 26386/02

  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, for example, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).