Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  "Quality of the law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in guaranteeing to persons detained a right to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of the detention and ordering its termination if it proves unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland [GC], no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000).

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  The Court observes that it has found delays of 23 days for one level of jurisdiction, and 43 days or 32 days for two levels of jurisdiction, to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4 (see, respectively, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; and G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 34-39, 30 November 2000).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  The Court observes that it has found delays of 23 days for one level of jurisdiction, and 43 days or 32 days for two levels of jurisdiction, to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4 (see, respectively, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-88, ECHR 2000-XII; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, §§ 91-94, 21 December 2000; and G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 34-39, 30 November 2000).

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  In another Russian case (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006) the Court found delays of 36, 29 and 26 days to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4, stressing that the entire duration of the appeal proceedings was attributable to the authorities.
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  Lastly, in cases involving extradition proceedings, the Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention where the review proceedings lasted 31 and 46 days, respectively, for two levels of jurisdiction (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, no. 9862/82 §§ 55-61, 21 October 1986), and 17 days for one level of jurisdiction (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 44, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  The applicant did not question the availability or effectiveness of a remedy for examination of the lawfulness of her detention, contrary to all the previous Russian cases concerning extradition examined by the Court (see Bordovskiy, cited above, §§ 60-68; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 142-52, 24 April 2008; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 79-90, 11 October 2007; Shchebet, cited above, §§ 71-79; and Ryabikin v Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 134-41, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06

  ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  The applicant did not question the availability or effectiveness of a remedy for examination of the lawfulness of her detention, contrary to all the previous Russian cases concerning extradition examined by the Court (see Bordovskiy, cited above, §§ 60-68; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 142-52, 24 April 2008; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 79-90, 11 October 2007; Shchebet, cited above, §§ 71-79; and Ryabikin v Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 134-41, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  The applicant did not question the availability or effectiveness of a remedy for examination of the lawfulness of her detention, contrary to all the previous Russian cases concerning extradition examined by the Court (see Bordovskiy, cited above, §§ 60-68; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 142-52, 24 April 2008; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 79-90, 11 October 2007; Shchebet, cited above, §§ 71-79; and Ryabikin v Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 134-41, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  Lastly, in cases involving extradition proceedings, the Court found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention where the review proceedings lasted 31 and 46 days, respectively, for two levels of jurisdiction (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, no. 9862/82 §§ 55-61, 21 October 1986), and 17 days for one level of jurisdiction (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 44, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  The applicant did not question the availability or effectiveness of a remedy for examination of the lawfulness of her detention, contrary to all the previous Russian cases concerning extradition examined by the Court (see Bordovskiy, cited above, §§ 60-68; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 142-52, 24 April 2008; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 79-90, 11 October 2007; Shchebet, cited above, §§ 71-79; and Ryabikin v Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 134-41, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 27426/95

  G.B. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 31.03.1993 - 17297/90

  TJIN-A-KWI AND VAN DEN HEUVEL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 13.12.1978 - 8098/77

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
• EKMR, 05.07.1984 - 10819/84

  K. c. BELGIQUE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.05.2014 - 25781/94

  Türkei muss wegen Besetzung Zyperns Millionen zahlen

  Rusu c. Autriche, no 34082/02, § 62, 2 octobre 2008 (3 000 euros) ; Crabtree c. République tchèque, no 41116/04, § 60, 25 février 2010 (2 000 euros) ; et Khoudiakova c. Russie, no 13476/04, § 107, 8 janvier 2009 (5 000 euros).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08

  [ENG]

  For a recent summary of the relevant Russian law and practice on issues of extradition of foreign nationals see Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, §§ 33-48, 8 January 2009.

  The Court has established in a number of cases against Russia its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the rights of persons detained pending extradition in so far as the lawfulness of their detention is concerned and the availability of judicial review of such detention (see, for example, Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 77 and 88-89, 11 October 2007; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 131 and 139-140, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 115 and 122, 11 December 2008; Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  He submits that the requirements of Article 5 § 4 were not complied with, since the domestic courts, in essence, kept endorsing the initial findings of the Perovskiy District Court of 25 March 2010, whereas he has not adduced any specific argument contesting the effectiveness of the available procedure (see, for instance, Nasrulloyev, cited above, §§ 79 and 84-90, and Ryabikin, cited above, §§ 134-41) or substantiating any unfairness in such proceedings (see, for example, Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 84 and 96-101, 8 January 2009).

• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  The Court concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, the delays of thirteen and thirty-four days in examining the appeals against the detention orders of 7 July and 8 September 2010 are incompatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (see, for comparison, Karimov, cited above, § 127, and Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 99, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  [ENG]

  As regards the applicant's argument concerning the "quality of the law" in the provisions governing detention of persons pending extradition, the Court cannot but observe that in a series of judgments it has held that those provisions were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (see, among other authorities, Nasrulloyev, cited above, §§ 76-78; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, §§ 138-140; Ryabikin, cited above, §§ 128-130; Muminov, cited above, §§ 121-123, and Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, §§ 68-74, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  [ENG]

  The Court concludes that, in the circumstances of the present case, the delay of twenty days in examining the appeal against the detention order of 27 December 2010 is incompatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (see, for comparison, Karimov, cited above, § 127, Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 99, 8 January 2009, and, as a recent authority, Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, §§ 184-187, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10

  ABIDOV AGAINST RUSSIA AND 19 OTHER CASES

  13476/04.
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 47593/10

  KHOMULLO v. UKRAINE

  The same logic may be applicable to detention pending extradition when the investigation is pending (see Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 92, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 26.04.2012 - 12275/10

  [ENG]

  The Court refers to its extensive case-law on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, for instance, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 145, 24 April 2008; Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, §§ 89, 92, 93 and 97, 8 January 2009; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 202-211; and Svetlorusov v. Ukraine, no. 2929/05, § 57, 12 March 2009) and reiterates that it entitles an arrested or detained person to institute proceedings bearing on the procedural and substantive conditions, which are essential for the "lawfulness", in the sense of the Convention, of his or her deprivation of liberty, and capable of leading, where appropriate, to the person's release.
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 10543/03

  [ENG]

  The Court has frequently found - albeit in the light of the specific circumstances of each case - review proceedings occurring within even shorter periods of time to nonetheless fall short of the requirement of a speedy judicial review within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (for an overview of the Court's case-law on the matter see Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 94, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 75832/13

  M.M. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 44882/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 19732/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 33526/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 26876/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 772/21 (anhängig)

  SATIROV v. RUSSIA