Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
For the above reasons, the Court finds that this part of the application cannot be rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies (see also Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, §§ 204-06, 13 July 2006; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 55-58, 1 June 2006; and Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI (extracts)).In the case of Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05, §§ 61-67, 1 June 2006), the complaints related to the period of time between 23 July 2004 and 19 May 2005, whilst in the case of Sukhovoy v. Russia (no. 63955/00, §§ 20-34, 27 March 2008) the applicant's submissions referred to the period from 8 January to 2 August 2000.
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
- EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 48864/99
TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to ensure that a person charged does not remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48864/99, 3 December 2002). - EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to ensure that a person charged does not remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48864/99, 3 December 2002). - EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
It appears that it was open to the applicant to lodge applications for release during the intervening periods of time (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 117, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)). - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 6214/02
KRANZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
In the absence of such evidence and having regard to the above-mentioned principles, the Court finds that the Government did not substantiate their claim that the remedy or remedies the applicant had allegedly failed to exhaust were effective ones (see, among other authorities, Kranz v. Poland, no. 6214/02, § 23, 17 February 2004, and Skawinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 42096/98, 4 March 2003). - EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04
CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99
KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87
CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 75832/13
M.M. c. BULGARIE
La Cour a toutefois considéré que l'exigence de célérité pouvait être moins contraignante s'agissant de la procédure en appel, en particulier lorsque la régularité de la détention a été confirmée par un premier degré de juridiction (Veliyev c. Russie, no 24202/05, § 164, 24 juin 2010, et Khoudiakova, précité, § 93). - EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
For the domestic law regulating detention during criminal proceedings see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2009-... in respect of the period until 1 July 2002, and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, §§ 107-113, 24 June 2010 in respect of the period since 1 July 2002. - EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12
GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA
Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to ensure that a person charged does not remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, § 173, 24 June 2010).