Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56151
EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,56151)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2011 - 20197/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,56151)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2011 - 20197/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,56151)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56151) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-b No violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-d Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (37)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03
    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts 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); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.

    The Court recalls that where the domestic law provides for a system of appeal, the appellate body must also comply with Article 5 § 4 (see Toth v. Austria, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224, § 84; see also Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 122 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03
    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).

    The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 221; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 106, ECHR 2000-IX; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 137, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03
    The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 221; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 106, ECHR 2000-IX; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 137, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 1128/17

    Meng ./. Deutschland - Konventionsverletzung durch Beteiligung eines nicht …

    45.  Bei Zugrundelegung des subjektiven Ansatzes hat der Gerichtshof in seiner ständigen Rechtsprechung festgestellt, dass die persönliche Unparteilichkeit eines Richters bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils unterstellt werden muss (siehe Morel ./. Frankreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 20197/03, Rdnr. 41, ECHR 2000VI; Kyprianou, a.a.O., Rdnr. 119, und Miminoshvili ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 20197/03, Rdnr. 113, 28. Juni 2011).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

    MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Applicants are required to explain to the domestic courts with sufficient clarity why the examination of a particular witness is necessary (see Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 122, 28 June 2011).

    However, this has not prevented the Court from using, from time to time, the old formula of "necessary" (see Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 122, 28 June 2011).

  • EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 63703/19

    MUCHA v. SLOVAKIA

    It also notes that in the proceedings against the applicant the trial court itself examined witness, expert and other evidence and that in its judgment convicting him it reached its own findings of fact and law (ibid., §§ 50 and 56, with further references), not being bound by the judgments concerning the co-perpetrators in terms of law (in that respect, see the unifying opinion of 5 April 2017 referred to in paragraph 28 above and, for example, Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 117, 28 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 16812/17

    RUSTAVI 2 BROADCASTING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

    The Court further restates that appearance of partiality under the objective test is to be measured by the standard of an objective observer (see, amongst other authorities, Pullar, cited above, § 39, A.K. v. Liechtenstein, no. 38191/12, § 75, 9 July 2015; and Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 114, 28 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51111/07

    Prozess gegen Kreml-Kritiker Chodorkowski war "unfair"

    The Court reiterates that it may not necessarily agree with all of the decisions taken by Judge Danilkin, and will scrutinise them in more detail below; however, there was nothing in them to reveal any particular predisposition against the applicants (see Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 114, 28 June 2011, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev, cited above, § 540).
  • EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 4211/12

    BEZEK v. GERMANY

    In Miminoshvili v. Russia (no. 20197/03, §§ 117 et seq., 28 June 2006) the Court analysed the judgment in the case concerning the co-accused and stressed that the applicant's name was never mentioned there in any incriminating context: the domestic court did not refer to the applicant as a "perpetrator" or "co-offender", in contrast to the situation in Ferrantelli and Santangelo, cited above.
  • EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 39300/18

    SACHARUK v. LITHUANIA

    In some cases, the Court has considered it a relevant factor in assessing a domestic court's impartiality in a subsequent case that that court had shown that it had carried out a fresh examination of the subsequent case (see Schwarzenberger v. Germany, no. 75737/01, § 43, 10 August 2006; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 117, 28 June 2011; and Bezek v. Germany (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

    MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

    As to Mr Mityanin's detention from 5 October 2004 until 14 March 2005 and then until 4 June 2005, the Court considers that the domestic courts acted within their powers in making the decisions, and there is nothing to suggest that they were invalid or unlawful in domestic law (compare with A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, §§ 153-59, 14 October 2010, and Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, §§ 70-74, 28 June 2011).
  • EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

    [ENG]

    The Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged (see, most recently, Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 146, 28 June 2011, with further references).
  • 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, 16.11.2021 - 42296/09

    KOVROV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  • EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 24999/21

    LARUS WELDING v. ICELAND

  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 44292/09

    GVINIASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 47186/21

    GOR? E v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

    ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  • EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 34067/23

    BOU? A v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08

    PANOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 3910/04

    [FRE]

  • EGMR - 12983/06

    LUPAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08

    KIKALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht