Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies victim) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violations of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 34 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 4493/04
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Neu Zitiert selbst (28)

• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  This means, in particular, that the detainee should have access to the documents in the investigation file which are essential for assessing the lawfulness of his detention (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, § 29, and Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

  MUSIAL c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  The Court observed in this connection that in certain instances "the complexity of... issues involved in a determination of whether a person should be detained or released can be a factor which may be taken into account when assessing compliance with the Article 5 § 4 requirements (see, mutatis mutandis, Baranovsky v. Poland [GC], no.28358/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-III, and Musial v. Poland [GC], no.24557/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  Thus, in Schiesser v. Switzerland (judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, § 31) the Court held:.

 
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  Some form of legal representation of the detainee may be required, namely when he is unable to defend himself properly or in other special circumstances (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 62; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A; and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 70, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  Possible exceptions from this rule are conceivable: the Court observes in this connection that "in order to determine whether a proceeding provides adequate guarantees, regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceeding takes place" (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 24, § 47).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  This means, in particular, that the detainee should have access to the documents in the investigation file which are essential for assessing the lawfulness of his detention (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, § 29, and Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  We would like to refer in this respect to the well-known jurisprudence of this Court which affirms that the State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65) or chosen by the accused (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 41).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  For now, the Court observes that there are two aspects to this "speediness" requirement: first, the opportunity for legal review must be provided soon after the person is taken into detention and, if necessary, at reasonable intervals thereafter (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  Some form of legal representation of the detainee may be required, namely when he is unable to defend himself properly or in other special circumstances (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 62; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A; and Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 70, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  We would like to refer in this respect to the well-known jurisprudence of this Court which affirms that the State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a lawyer appointed for legal aid purposes (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, § 65) or chosen by the accused (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 41).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 27426/95

  G.B. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 56811/00

  AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

  Nur außergewöhnliche Umstände, insbesondere das erst spätere Bekanntwerden eines Grundes, der zu einer Einwendung gegen die Zulässigkeit Anlass gibt, könnten eine Regierung von der Verpflichtung entbinden, ihre Einrede in diesen Stellungnahmen vorzubringen, ehe die Kammer ihre Zulässigkeitsentscheidung erlässt (…siehe Rechtssachen N.C. ./. Italien, a. a. O., Randnr. 44;… Sejdovic, a. a. O., Randnr. 41; und Lebedev ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 4493/04, Randnrn. 39-40, 25. Oktober 2007).
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)

  In Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 98 et seq., 25 October 2007) the Court held that delays of forty and sixty-seven days constituted a breach of Article 5 § 4 as far as the appeal proceedings were concerned.

  In another case (Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 98 et seq., 25 October 2007) the Court held that delays of forty and sixty-seven days constituted a breach of Article 5 § 4 as far as the appeal proceedings were concerned.

• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 39666/16

  AGEYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the leading cases of Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007), Kharchenko v. Ukraine, (no. 40107/02, §§ 84-87, 10 February 2011) and Korneykova v. Ukraine (no. 39884/05, §§ 69-70, 19 January 2012) the Court found a violation in respect of issues, similar to those in the present case (see the appended table).

  Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 109-15, 25 October 2007; Korneykova.

 
• EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 22692/15

  PATALAKH v. GERMANY

  Ebenso hat der Gerichtshof festgestellt, dass in Verfahren vor den ordentlichen Gerichten, die sich einem gerichtlichen Haftbefehl anschließen, Verzögerungen von mehr als drei bis vier Wochen, die die Behörden zu verantworten haben, eine Frage im Zusammenhang mit dem Erfordernis der kurzen Frist nach Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention aufwerfen können (vgl. u. a. G.B../. Schweiz, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 27 und 32-39, und Lebedev./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 4493/04, Rdnrn. 97-102, 25. Oktober 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 32541/08

  Keine Käfige für Angeklagte

  Lorsqu'au cours de la procédure devant la Cour survient un nouvel élément procédural ayant une portée juridique et pouvant avoir une incidence sur la recevabilité de la requête, il est dans l'intérêt d'une bonne administration de la justice que la Partie contractante qui souhaite en exciper le fasse formellement dans les meilleurs délais (voir, mutatis mutandis, N.C. c. Italie [GC], no 24952/94, § 45, CEDH 2002-X, et Lebedev c. Russie, no 4493/04, §§ 39-40, 25 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  By contrast, where the domestic formalities were easy to comply with, no issue arose under Article 34 (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 119, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 33376/07

  PIRUZYAN v. ARMENIA

  In that case, the Court held that it was of little relevance whether the domestic court decided on an application for release lodged by the defence or a request for detention introduced by the prosecution (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 72, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that detention without a court order or other clear legal ground, regardless of the maximum length for it that might be established by national law, is incompatible with the standard of "lawfulness", enshrined in Article 5 § 1 since during the time of unauthorised detention an individual would be kept in a legal vacuum not covered by any domestic legal provision (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 149, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 57, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 12008/06

  ALEKSEY BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'en matière de « régularité'd'une détention, y compris l'observation des « voies légales ", la Convention renvoie pour l'essentiel à la législation nationale et consacre l'obligation d'en observer les normes de fond comme de procédure, mais exige de surcroît la conformité de toute privation de liberté au but de l'article 5 précité: protéger l'individu contre l'arbitraire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Lebedev c. Russie, no 4493/04, § 53, 25 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  By contrast, where the domestic formalities were easy to comply with, no issue arose under Article 34 (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 119, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 82087/17

  D.C. c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 11871/05

  HADADE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 31717/15

  NADTOCHIY AND POLOVYAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 4336/06

  MANSUROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  SEFILYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 26627/05

  KARIMBAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 19699/18

  AKGÜN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 32241/18 (anhängig)

  PAVLIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 5432/15

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 52023/08

  BOLDYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 47230/11

  BOGOSYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 22965/06

  ZHULIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 1136/05

  CEUTA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 8630/11

  SUPRUNENKO v. RUSSIA