Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILKOSKI AND OTHERS v. \

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207; Muller v. France, 17 March 1997, § 43, Reports 1997-II; YaÄ?cı and Sargın, cited above, § 52; and Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 73, 8 June 2006).

  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the present judgment constitutes sufficient reparation (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 62, Series A no. 207, and Muller v. France, 17 March 1997, § 54, Reports 1997-II).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  No reason was given why the consequences and hazards of absconding would have seemed to the applicants to be a lesser evil than continued imprisonment (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 68864/01

  MERGER AND CROS v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see, mutatis mutandis, Merger and Cros v. France (dec.), no. 68864/01, 11 March 2004; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI; and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  PARIZOV v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court "the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents", failing which "the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part" (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 71, 7 February 2008).

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  ; Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, §§ 56 et suiv., CEDH 2003-IX ; Tretyakov c. Ukraine, no 16698/05, § 59, 29 septembre 2011 ; et Vasilkoski et autres c. « l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine ", no 28169/08, § 64, 28 octobre 2010).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 57325/19

  JANAKIESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Lastly, it is noteworthy that in previous cases against the respondent State concerning complaints lodged under Article 5 § 3 (see Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, 28 October 2010; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, 50570/09 and 50576/09, 24 April 2014; and Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, 8 February 2018) the Government did not argue that a compensation claim was an effective remedy for the purposes of that provision.
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 39061/11

  THIMOTHAWES c. BELGIQUE

  La jurisprudence de la Cour exige que l'on démontre au cas par cas la nécessité objective d'un placement en détention dans le cadre de l'article 5. Pour la majorité, la manière laconique et stéréotypée des décisions de privation de liberté ne pose aucun problème au sens de l'article 5. La Cour a conclu à la violation dans les affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer des faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (voir l'abondante jurisprudence de la Cour à cet égard, par exemple ; Solmaz c. Turquie, no 27561/02, § 41, 16 janvier 2007, Cahit Demirel c. Turquie, no 18623/03, § 24, 7 juillet 2009, Filiz c. Turquie, no 28074/08, § 61, 4 mars 2014, Tretyakov c. Ukraine, no 16698/05, § 59, 29 septembre 2011 ; Vasilkoski et autres c. « ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine ", no 28169/08, § 64, 28 octobre 2010, Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 67-68, 5 novembre 2015 ; Buzadji c. République de Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, § 122, CEDH 2016).

 
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 45959/09

  MITROV v.

  There is nothing to indicate that if the applicant had lodged such requests in respect of the investigating judge, Judge V.D. or the lay judges, the president of the court would have decided otherwise (see, mutatis mutandis, Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 46, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 18678/18

  PESHOV AND RISTOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The relevant general principles regarding the requirement that there must have been "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify continued detention have been summarised in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016, with further references), Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 45-49, 24 April 2014) and Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 28169/08, §§ 55-57, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12

  RAGIP ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE

  Eu égard à la nature particulière de l'affaire, où il y a des personnes placées dans des situations totalement analogues, dont certains n'ont pas saisi la juridiction invoquée par le Gouvernement défendeur, elle ne peut pas déclarer un grief irrecevable dans la mesure où le recours interne exercé par certains s'est révélé inefficace en pratique, ce qui aurait été aussi le cas pour les autres (mutatis mutandis, Asadbeyli et autres c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 3653/05 et 5 autres, §§ 118-119, 11 décembre 2012 et Vasilkoski et autres c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 28169/08, § 46, 28 octobre 2010).
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  RAMKOVSKI v.

  It is incumbent on the domestic authorities to establish the existence of concrete facts relevant to the grounds for continued detention (see Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 57, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 6207/16

  SENOTRUSOVY v. RUSSIA

  Assuming that he complied with the exhaustion requirements (compare Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, §§ 42-46, 28 October 2010), and that the application is not incompatible ratione personae, it is inadmissible as follows.
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 72408/14

  KUZMANOVIK v.

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, its practice concerning complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 123, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, §§ 58-65, 28 October 2010; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos.