Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  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 - Procedural guarantees of review) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Artemov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  This is particularly true in the Russian legal system, where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of whether the evidence obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

  Bearing in mind the six-month requirement laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not competent to examine these complaints (for the same approach see Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 159, 3 October 2013, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 6847/02, ECHR).

• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial, the guarantee of which is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention (see Gautrin and Others v. France, judgment of 20 May 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, § 42, and Pretto and Others v. Italy, judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, § 21).
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings, in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006, and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 58675/00

  MARTINIE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings, in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006, and B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  There is a high expectation of publicity in ordinary criminal proceedings, which may well concern dangerous individuals, notwithstanding the attendant security problems (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 87).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  As regards the applicant's submissions concerning contradictions in witness statements and the unsafe character of his sentence, the Court reiterates that while Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  As the Court has previously observed, the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of criminal activities may be accepted as the basis for detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37-38, 4 May 2006, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 95, ECHR 2007 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are actual indications of a genuine requirement of the public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts) When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts) When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  NIZOMKHON DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13

  KARTOYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle également que, dans de nombreuses affaires, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 après avoir constaté que les juridictions internes avaient ordonné l'exclusion du public des débats en motivant cette mesure simplement par la présence de documents classés secrets dans un dossier judiciaire ou par la nécessité d'assurer la sécurité des parties à la procédure, sans évaluer la nécessité de cette exclusion en mettant en balance le principe de la publicité des débats et les impératifs de protection de l'ordre public, de la sécurité nationale ou des intérêts de la justice (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, §§ 79-88, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 152-160, 11 octobre 2011, Raks c. Russie, no 20702/04, §§ 43-51, 11 octobre 2011, Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, §§ 185-192, 23 octobre 2012, Artemov c. Russie, no 14945/03, §§ 43-51, 3 avril 2014, Sheynoyev c. Russie [comité], no 65783/09, §§ 14-16, 25 septembre 2018, 1zmestyev c. Russie, no 74141/10, §§ 82-95, 27 août 2019, et Maslennikov c. Russie [comité], no 42301/11, §§ 15-31, 8 décembre 2020).
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 11297/09

  DADASHBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary to limit the open and public nature of proceedings, in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, § 40, ECHR 2006-VI; and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 103, 3 April 2014).