Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,16664
EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,16664)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.04.2012 - 41794/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,16664)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. April 2012 - 41794/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,16664)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16664) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage) (englisch)




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (21)  

  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 6312/13

    LUTSKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    57.
  • EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

    YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court thus considers that, although the applicant did not lodge appeals against any other extension orders, he gave the Regional Court the opportunity to consider whether his detention was compatible with his Convention right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial (for a similar approach see the case of Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 149, 24 April 2012, where the applicant challenged only two court orders).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

    ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA

    This is more than six months after the expiry of the periods of detention complained of (see Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 123, 24 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

    NIYAZOV v. RUSSIA

    It has been the Court's constant approach that permitting a detained person to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific limit on the duration of that detention would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see, among many others in the context of Article 5 § 1 (c), Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 130, 24 April 2012, Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, § 142).
  • EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

    STRELETS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has previously found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in many Russian cases where the domestic court maintained a custodial measure in respect of applicants, without indicating any particular reason for such a decision or setting a specific time-limit for the continued detention or for a periodic review of the preventive measure (see Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 78-82, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 111-115, 23 April 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 111-115, 25 June 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 43-47, 9 July 2009; and, most recently, Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 129-131, 24 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

    ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court reiterates in this connection that court decisions extending detention without any reasoning are contrary to Article 5 of the Convention (compare Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 130, 24 April 2012, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

    ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes in this connection that, according to its constant practice, an application for a supervisory review in the context of criminal proceedings has so far not been considered as a remedy to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 (see, among many others, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Maayevy v. Russia, no. 7964/07, § 81, 24 May 2011; and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 125, 24 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

    SOS v. CROATIA

    Thus, in the Court's view, contrary to the case-law concerning some other countries (see, for instance, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 98, 10 February 2011, and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 130, 24 April 2012), no issue of itself arises in this context.
  • EGMR - 60882/12 (anhängig)

    AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

    Did the courts respect the "presumption in favour of release" (in particular, insofar as the distribution of the burden of proof was concerned (see Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 108, 12 June 2008, and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 154, 9 October 2008)? Did the courts assess specific factual circumstances demonstrating the existence of the risks allegedly posed by the applicants (see, for example, Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 107, 8 February 2005; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, §§ 57-59, 24 May 2007; Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, §§ 80-82, 15 May 2008; Sizov v. Russia, no. 33123/08, § 53, 15 March 2011; and Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, §§ 127-133, 11 October 2011)? Did the courts examine relevant evidence in order to establish the existence of those facts (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 125-27, 12 March 2009, and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 162, 24 April 2012)? Did the courts consider the possibility of applying less intrusive preventive measures to the applicants, such as bail, house arrest, electronic surveillance, personal sureties and so on (see, for example, Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 69-71, 24 May 2007; Tsarkov v. Russia, no. 16854/03, § 70, 16 July 2009; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 92, 28 June 2011; and Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, § 71, 20 September 2011; see also the ruling of 22 October 2009 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)? Did the courts have due regard to the changing situation of the defendants and the evolving needs of the proper conduct of the proceedings when extending the detention (see, for example, Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 191, 22 December 2008; Sizov v. Russia, cited above; and Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, § 87, 10 January 2012)?.
  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

    NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA

    Where the applicants had been remanded in custody at the moment of communication but were subsequently released, the Court held itself competent to examine the period of pre-trial detention until the date of release (see, among others, Mikhail Grishin v. Russia, no. 14807/08, §§ 4 and 137, 24 July 2012; Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 4 and 154, 24 April 2012; Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 4 and 93, 8 April 2010; Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, §§ 4, 53, 76 and 77, 10 March 2009; Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, §§ 3 and 47, 25 October 2007, and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 4 and 72, 1 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 18339/04

    CHERNETSKIY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

    ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  • EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 13596/05

    TIKHONOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05

    SHIKUTA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8049/07

    NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 22458/04

    ZAKHARIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 75734/12 (anhängig)

    RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

  • EGMR - 71862/13 (anhängig)

    KRIVOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 44292/09

    GVINIASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 9536/10

    FEDORIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

    GORBATENKO AND SHEYDYAKOV v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht