Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 13+6, Art. 13+8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+6 Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13+8 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 46082/99
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 46082/99
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court first recalls 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, the (see Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The scope of the Contracting States' obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  However, as regards the necessity of the interference, the Government have not submitted any reasons which could justify this control of correspondence with the Court, the confidentiality of which must be respected (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 82-84, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78

  CORIGLIANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term (see, among other authorities, the Corigliano v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 57, p. 13, § 34, and the Imbriosca v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that the period to be taken into consideration in determining the length of criminal proceedings begins with the day on which a person is "charged" within the autonomous and substantive meaning to be given to that term (see, among other authorities, the Corigliano v. Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 57, p. 13, § 34, and the Imbriosca v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that while its jurisdiction ratione temporis covers only the period after the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Russia on 5 May 1998, the Court will take into account the state of proceedings existing on the material date (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the YaÄ?ci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 16, § 40).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 for civil or criminal litigation (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, p. 42, § 78 in fine; the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 66, 4 July 2000), it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question.
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  BORIS POPOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 126, ECHR 2001-VIII; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 108, 30 November 2004; and Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia, no. 3950/02, § 50, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 63748/13

  PSHIBIYEV ET BEROV c. RUSSIE

  À la date d'adoption du présent arrêt, le Comité des Ministres du Conseil de l'Europe poursuit la surveillance de l'exécution d'un groupe d'affaires relatives à des violations du droit à la liberté et à la sûreté dans le contexte de la détention provisoire - parmi lesquelles l'affaire Klyakhin c. Russie (no 46082/99, 30 novembre 2004) et 397 affaires répétitives - qui appellent selon lui une procédure de surveillance soutenue.
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  VLADIMIR KRIVONOSOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court first reiterates 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court firstly reiterates 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 923/03

  YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  The opening of letters by prison authorities can therefore hinder applicants in bringing their cases to the Court, precisely by producing this "chilling effect" (see Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, §§ 118 and 119, 30 November 2004; Belyaev and Digtyar v. Ukraine, nos. 16984/04 and 9947/05, § 61, 16 February 2012; and Kopanitsyn v. Russia, no. 43231/04, § 43, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  SVETLANA KAZMINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court firstly reiterates 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 2450/04

  KONDRATYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).