Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLETMENTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pletmentsev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  With reference to the cases of Silin v. Russia (no. 3947/03, 24 April 2008) and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia (no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008), the Government submitted that, should the Court establish that there had been a breach of the applicant's Convention rights, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be 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 v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be 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 v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be 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 v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 14810/02

  RYAKIB BIRYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  With reference to the cases of Silin v. Russia (no. 3947/03, 24 April 2008) and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia (no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008), the Government submitted that, should the Court establish that there had been a breach of the applicant's Convention rights, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  They are similar to several cases in which the Court found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention owing to the combination of a lack of any reasons for ordering pre-trial detention and a failure to fix its duration (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 136-37, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-98, 24 May 2007; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 111-14, 23 April 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 92-93, 10 January 2012; and Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, § 43, 27 June 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 25697/13

  ZAUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in cases featuring complaints about unlawful detention (see, for recent examples, Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, 27 June 2013; Sergey Chebotarev v. Russia, no. 61510/09, 7 May 2014; Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014; Eduard Shabalin v. Russia, no. 1937/05, 16 October 2014).