Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection dismissed (ratione personae) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 35231/02
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  The Court reiterates that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI, and Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 93, 8 February 2005).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  While it is for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-X).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  The Court reiterates that it is necessary, when examining the question whether Article 5 § 3 has been observed, to consider and assess the reasonableness of the grounds which persuaded the judicial authorities to decide, in the case brought before the Court, on this serious departure from the rules of respect for individual liberty and of the presumption of innocence which is involved in every detention without a conviction (see Stogmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 4).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

  Moreover, the Court must ascertain whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 19-20, § 45).

• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 64627/13

  OKSANICH v. UKRAINE

  In the Court's opinion, the domestic courts, by ignoring the above argument, despite the fact that it was specific, pertinent and important, fell short of their obligation under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to review the lawfulness of the applicant's detention (see, for example, Svershov v. Ukraine, no. 35231/02, § 71, 27 November 2008).