Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BANNIKOV v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bannikov v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BANNIKOV v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 19279/03
• EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03
• EGMR, 16.09.2015 - 19279/03

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  The Court has clarified its understanding of the "no significant disadvantage" criterion in Korolev v. Russia (dec.) (no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010), in the following terms:.

  It would be a sad day indeed for fundamental human rights if, in order to reduce its backlog, the Court were to begin applying Article 35 § 3 (b) to Article 5 § 1 situations, instead of confining the said ground of inadmissibility to violations with a financial or patrimonial impact considered to be trivial (as, for example, in Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; and Cecchetti v. San Marino (dec.), no. 40174/08, 9 April 2013).

• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 15598/08

  OSTENDORF v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  In Ostendorf v. Germany (no. 15598/08, 7 March 2013) - where a person was detained for four hours - it never crossed anyone's mind even to suggest that this was a de minimis case (even though the "no significant disadvantage" admissibility criterion was applicable in virtue of the transitory provisions of Protocol No. 14).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  At most a given situation may amount to a mere temporary restriction of one's liberty, as was implicit in Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC] nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, 15 March 2012).

• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  46113/99 and others, § 98, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 25.09.2003 - 52792/99

  VASILEVA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  Were that to happen, cases like those of sexagenarian Mrs Sofiika Vasileva, who was illegally detained overnight in a police cell for failing to reveal her identity to a bus ticket inspector after she was caught riding the bus without a valid ticket (Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, 25 September 2003), would probably be declared de minimis.
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 8543/04

  CUPRAKOVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  The Court therefore considers that the Government have shown that recourse to the administrative courts could, in principle, be considered an effective remedy for a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention such as in the present case (see also the Court's acceptance of the effectiveness of recourse to the administrative courts for a complaint related to the opening of correspondence in a prison, Cuprakovs v. Latvia, no. 8543/04, § 67, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 40174/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  It would be a sad day indeed for fundamental human rights if, in order to reduce its backlog, the Court were to begin applying Article 35 § 3 (b) to Article 5 § 1 situations, instead of confining the said ground of inadmissibility to violations with a financial or patrimonial impact considered to be trivial (as, for example, in Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010; and Cecchetti v. San Marino (dec.), no. 40174/08, 9 April 2013).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  A full description of the law and practice as concerns pre-trial detention at the relevant time may be found in Svipsta v. Latvia (no. 66820/01, §§ 53-66, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)) and Vogins v. Latvia (no. 3992/02, §§ 22-23, 1 February 2007).
• KAG Freiburg, 19.06.2009 - 11/09

  Anspruch auf Freistellung und Kostenübernahme für eine beabsichtigte …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

  11/09/2013.
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

  LEJA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

  ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 46040/07

  MARINA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16593/10

  ZWINKELS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 3992/02

  VOGINS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 71092/01

  ZANDBERGS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 69458/01

  GASINS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01

  NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 19619/03

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 49037/09

  DMITRIJEVS v. LATVIA

  The Court refers to its interpretation of the de minimis principle recently summarised in another case brought against Latvia (Bannikov v. Latvia, no. 19279/03, §§ 57-58, 11 June 2013), namely, that the Court will examine, first, whether the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage; second, whether respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits; and third, whether the case has been duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see also Zwinkels v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16593/10, § 24, 9 October 2012).