Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SNYATOVSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (30)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The Court reiterates that it has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in cases where appeal proceedings lasted seventeen (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003), twenty (see Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22 December 2009), twenty-six (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006), and twenty-seven days (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 154-56, 23 October 2012), emphasising - in each case - that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities.

  In the case of Pichugin v. Russia (no. 38623/03, § 154, 23 October 2012) the Court accepted a delay of seventeen days.

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in Idalov (cited above § 186); Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC] (no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI); Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], (no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II); Grigoryev v. Russia (no. 22663/06, §§ 90 and 92, 23 October 2012); and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia (no. 41833/04, §§ 143-44, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The Court reiterates that it has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in cases where appeal proceedings lasted seventeen (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003), twenty (see Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22 December 2009), twenty-six (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006), and twenty-seven days (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 154-56, 23 October 2012), emphasising - in each case - that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities.

• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in Idalov (cited above § 186); Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC] (no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI); Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], (no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II); Grigoryev v. Russia (no. 22663/06, §§ 90 and 92, 23 October 2012); and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia (no. 41833/04, §§ 143-44, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The Court reiterates that it has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in cases where appeal proceedings lasted seventeen (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003), twenty (see Butusov v. Russia, no. 7923/04, §§ 32-35, 22 December 2009), twenty-six (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006), and twenty-seven days (see Pichugin v. Russia, no. 38623/03, §§ 154-56, 23 October 2012), emphasising - in each case - that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities.
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in Idalov (cited above § 186); Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC] (no. 49017/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI); Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], (no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II); Grigoryev v. Russia (no. 22663/06, §§ 90 and 92, 23 October 2012); and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. Russia (no. 41833/04, §§ 143-44, 27 January 2011).
• EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 16595/02

  GOLOVKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The Court accepts that the present case was particularly complex, as it involved several defendants charged on a number of counts and there was a need to ensure the participation and questioning of hundreds of witnesses at the trial hearings (see, mutatis mutandis, Golovkin v. Russia, no. 16595/02, § 39, 3 April 2008 and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 128, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] (no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, ECHR 2016); Idalov v. Russia [GC] (no. 5826/03, §§ 115-33, 22 May 2012); Zherebin (cited above, §§ 49-54); and Suslov v. Russia (no. 2366/07, §§ 84-86, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the seriousness of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation (see, among many other authorities, Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, § 64, 12 November 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 51, 15 May 2014; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the seriousness of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation (see, among many other authorities, Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, § 64, 12 November 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 51, 15 May 2014; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02

  SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 51445/09

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 10060/07

  BATALINY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

  KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 591/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 42372/08

  YEREMENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 48929/08

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 57325/19

  JANAKIESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  The Court has previously found such delays to be excessive (see, for example, Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, § 65, 13 December 2016, and contrast Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 75, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR - 55770/11 (anhängig)

  TEKHNYUK v. and 9 other applications

  (81932/17, Ichiyev v. Russia; 32241/18) Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of those proceedings comply with the "speedy" requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, § 62, 13 December 2016)?.
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 18678/18

  PESHOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 2 other applications

  Rn. 25 The Court further finds it excessive that it took twenty-two days for the appellate court to decide the first applicant's appeal against the order of 26 January 2018 (see, for example, Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, § 65, 13 December 2016).

• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 25190/18

  DOCEVSKA-BOZHINOVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In view of its case-law (see, for example, Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, § 65, 13 December 2016) the Court considers that this delay was excessive.
• EGMR - 46011/22 (anhängig)

  MITROVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  Were the review proceedings before the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the order of 25 July 2022 for the extension of the applicants' house arrest compatible with the "speedy" requirement within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Janakieski v. North Macedonia, nos. 57325/19 and 16291/20, § 88, 14 November 2023; Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, § 65, 13 December 2016)?.
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 42259/07

  BOYKO v. RUSSIA

  In so far as the court appointed legal aid counsel to represent the applicant in those proceedings and as there is no evidence that counsel did not discharge his duties in good faith, those proceedings satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, §§ 59-60, 13 December 2016).