Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARABANOV v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of ...

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  TARANENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  The Court therefore deems it more appropriate to deal with this complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kovyazin and Others v. Russia, nos. 13008/13 and 2 others, § 71, 17 September 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 46, 15 May 2014; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 165, 31 May 2011).

  In the case of Taranenko v. Russia (no. 19554/05, §§ 82-91, 15 May 2014) the Court produced an analysis of its case-law and formulated the principle that participants in a demonstration which results in damage or other disorder, but who do not themselves commit any violent or otherwise reprehensible acts, cannot be prosecuted solely on the ground of their participation in the demonstration.

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  The obligation to comply with the present judgment would thus require the adoption of other measures in addition to the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court, which is only designed to make reparation for such consequences of a violation that cannot otherwise be remedied (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 252, ECHR 2013 (extracts).
• EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 50959/99

  ODABASI ET KOÇAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  In that context, the Court reiterates that while the respondent State in principle remains free to choose the means by which it will comply with this obligation, it is for the Committee of Ministers to assess whether those means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment and consistent with the approach adopted by the Convention organs in similar cases (see, for example, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I, and the Resolution of the Committee of Ministers ResDH(2010)63 of 3 June 2010 on the execution of the judgment in Odabasi and Koçak v. Turkey, no. 50959/99, 21 February 2006).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  It will be thus for the respondent State to take appropriate measures to redress the effects of any past or future damage to the applicant as a result of his disproportionate sentencing which the Court has found to be in breach of the Convention (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  In that context, the Court reiterates that while the respondent State in principle remains free to choose the means by which it will comply with this obligation, it is for the Committee of Ministers to assess whether those means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment and consistent with the approach adopted by the Convention organs in similar cases (see, for example, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I, and the Resolution of the Committee of Ministers ResDH(2010)63 of 3 June 2010 on the execution of the judgment in Odabasi and Koçak v. Turkey, no. 50959/99, 21 February 2006).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04

  Russland wegen Chodorkowski verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  The Court therefore deems it more appropriate to deal with this complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kovyazin and Others v. Russia, nos. 13008/13 and 2 others, § 71, 17 September 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 46, 15 May 2014; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 165, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

  KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 4966/13

  The Court therefore deems it more appropriate to deal with this complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kovyazin and Others v. Russia, nos. 13008/13 and 2 others, § 71, 17 September 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 46, 15 May 2014; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 165, 31 May 2011).

• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  Eu égard à ce qui précède, la Cour estime que le laps de temps écoulé n'est pas compatible avec l'exigence d'un contrôle à bref délai (voir, à titre d'exemple, Barabanov c. Russie, nos 4966/13 et 5550/15, §§ 58-59, 30 janvier 2018, où la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention pour des durées allant de vingt à vingt-cinq jours).
• EGMR, 19.07.2022 - 41248/17

  BORISOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  In those circumstances, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Barabanov v. Russia, nos. 4966/13 and 5550/15, § 41, 30 January 2018, and Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, nos.