Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 40774/02
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02, 4048/03

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• 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 - 40774/02

  Furthermore, the Court observes 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).

  The Court reiterates that, in assessing the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in question, it is necessary to have regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicants and of the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  The Court considers that the absence of any precise provisions laying down whether - and if so, under what conditions - detention ordered for a limited period at the investigation stage could properly be prolonged at the stage of the court proceedings does not satisfy the test of "foreseeability" of a "law" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-III, and Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, § 51, 9 January 2001).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  The Court further 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, 10 November 1969, § 4, Series A no. 9).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  The Court first points out that, in 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 (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  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 - 40774/02

  The Court has held on many occasions 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 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 - 40774/02

  The Court has held on many occasions 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 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 - 40774/02

  The Court has held on many occasions 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 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, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  Any greater strictness would lead to unjust consequences; for the vast majority of "individual" petitions are received from laymen applying to the Court without the assistance of a lawyer (see, mutatis mutandis, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 61, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  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, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  40774/02 and 4048/03, §§ 70-72, 27 November 2008; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 106-10, 27 January 2009; Feldman v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 6492/11

  Luzenko ./. Ukraine

  40774/02 and 4048/03, § 70, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE

  Other relevant provisions of the Code are summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, § 54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 43, 27 November 2008)).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 14475/03

  BILYY v. UKRAINE

  The provisions of the Code which concern detention on remand are summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, § 54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 43, 27 November 2008)).
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE

  The Court has held on many occasions 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 Svershov v. Ukraine, no. 35231/02, § 54, 27 November 2008; Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine, nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 72, 27 November 2008 and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-X).