Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TSARKOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts have extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Mamedova, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts have extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Mamedova, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Rokhlina, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  However, they do not give the authorities unlimited power to extend this preventive measure (see Osuch v. Poland, no. 31246/02, § 26, 14 November 2006; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37-38, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  The Court has already found that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee was incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 45, 14 December 2006).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  The Court has already found that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee was incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 45, 14 December 2006).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  Lastly, the Court emphasises that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 31246/02

  OSUCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  However, they do not give the authorities unlimited power to extend this preventive measure (see Osuch v. Poland, no. 31246/02, § 26, 14 November 2006; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 37-38, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 39437/03

  MISZKURKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  Furthermore, such a risk was bound to decrease gradually as the trial proceeded and the witnesses were interviewed (compare Miszkurka v. Poland, no. 39437/03, § 51, 4 May 2006) The Court is not therefore persuaded that, throughout the entire period of the applicant's detention, compelling reasons existed for a fear that he would interfere with witnesses or otherwise hamper the investigation of the case, and certainly not such as to outweigh the applicant's right to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial.
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

  MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  16854/03.
• EGMR - 60882/12 (anhängig)

  AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

  Did the courts respect the "presumption in favour of release" (in particular, insofar as the distribution of the burden of proof was concerned (see Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 108, 12 June 2008, and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 154, 9 October 2008)? Did the courts assess specific factual circumstances demonstrating the existence of the risks allegedly posed by the applicants (see, for example, Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 107, 8 February 2005; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, §§ 57-59, 24 May 2007; Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, §§ 80-82, 15 May 2008; Sizov v. Russia, no. 33123/08, § 53, 15 March 2011; and Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, §§ 127-133, 11 October 2011)? Did the courts examine relevant evidence in order to establish the existence of those facts (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 125-27, 12 March 2009, and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 162, 24 April 2012)? Did the courts consider the possibility of applying less intrusive preventive measures to the applicants, such as bail, house arrest, electronic surveillance, personal sureties and so on (see, for example, Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 69-71, 24 May 2007; Tsarkov v. Russia, no. 16854/03, § 70, 16 July 2009; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 92, 28 June 2011; and Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, § 71, 20 September 2011; see also the ruling of 22 October 2009 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)? Did the courts have due regard to the changing situation of the defendants and the evolving needs of the proper conduct of the proceedings when extending the detention (see, for example, Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 191, 22 December 2008; Sizov v. Russia, cited above; and Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, § 87, 10 January 2012)?.
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 19664/07

  [ENG]

  The fact that a person is charged with acting in a criminal conspiracy is not in itself sufficient to justify long periods of detention; his personal circumstances and behaviour must always be taken into account (see Tsarkov v. Russia, no. 16854/03, § 67, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  - Did the courts consider the possibility of applying less intrusive preventive measures to the applicants, such as bail, house arrest, electronic surveillance, personal sureties and so on (see, for example, Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 69-71, 24 May 2007; Tsarkov v. Russia, no. 16854/03, § 70, 16 July 2009; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 92, 28 June 2011; and Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, § 71, 20 September 2011; see also the ruling of 22 October 2009 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)?.