Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YEVGENIY BOGDANOV 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. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X).

  Bearing in mind the six-month requirement laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not competent to examine these grievances (for the same approach see Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 159, 3 October 2013; Khudoyorov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 6847/02, 22 February 2005; and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 90, 3 April 2014).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  As regards the risk of absconding, it should be assessed with reference to various factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which he is being prosecuted (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  Although the Court may accept that the seriousness of charges might form the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37-38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007 (extracts)), it cannot agree that it may be accepted at an advanced stage of the proceedings as the main reason for a person's detention.

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  Although the Court may accept that the seriousness of charges might form the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37-38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007 (extracts)), it cannot agree that it may be accepted at an advanced stage of the proceedings as the main reason for a person's detention.
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  In the context of an alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, this rule requires that the domestic authorities be given an opportunity to consider whether an applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time has been respected and whether there exist relevant and sufficient grounds continuing to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, for instance, Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 35, 14 December 2006, or Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 50, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  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) When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  MELNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  The Court reiterates that when determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, or, possibly, when the applicant is released from custody pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  The Court reiterates that when determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, or, possibly, when the applicant is released from custody pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02

  PSHEVECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05

  VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'une allégation quant à l'absence ou l'insuffisance de soins ou toute autre carence de traitement médical doit être suffisamment étayée (Yevgeniy Bogdanov c. Russie, no 22405/04, § 93, 26 février 2015).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 9904/09

  YUDIN c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de juger que des conditions de transfert similaires à celles décrites par le requérant ont constitué un traitement inhumain et dégradant au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention (Yevgeniy Bogdanov c. Russie, no 22405/04, §§ 101-105, 26 février 2015, Trepachkine c. Russie (no 2), no 14248/05, §§ 131-136, 16 décembre 2010, Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 131-136, 9 octobre 2008, et Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 112-120, CEDH 2005-X (extraits)).