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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Miminoshvili v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (22)

• 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, 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, 08.12.1998 - 39519/98

  PADIN GESTOSO contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  The Court notes that the investigation of the case continued for over one year, so, generally speaking, the applicant had sufficient time, after being served with the decision to charge him, for the preparation of his defence and for developing his counter-arguments (Padin Gestoso v. Spain (dec.), no. 39519/98, 8 December 1998).

 
• 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, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  Such "occurrences" may include, for instance, changes in the indictment (as in Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, §§ 60 et seq., ECHR 1999-II), adoption of a judgment by the trial court (Hadjianastassiou v. Greece (16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 252), introduction of new evidence by the prosecution (G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, §§ 60 et seq., ECHR 2001-X), or a sudden and drastic change in the opinion of an expert during the trial (ibid, §§ 64 et seq.).
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  Although it is normally for the national courts to assess the evidence before them as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce, there might be exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (see Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 41, 18 May 2004, and Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  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).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  Nevertheless, in the light of its consistent case-law the Court finds that even that delay, in view of the complexity of the case and other relevant factors, is excessive and cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (compare, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where the review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy", and Mamedova, cited above, § 96; where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  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, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2007 - 21279/02

  LINDON, OTCHAKOVSKY-LAURENS ET JULY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83

  HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 26.02.1993 - 13396/87

  PADOVANI v. ITALY

• 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, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08

  PANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where the domestic courts for various reasons omitted to conduct a judicial review of applicants" detention pending trial (see Sadretdinov v. Russia, no. 17564/06, §§ 88-95, 24 May 2016; G.O. v. Russia, no. 39249/03, §§ 98-101, 18 October 2011; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, §§ 104-05, 28 June 2011; Popov and Vorobyev v. Russia, no. 1606/02, §§ 93-100, 23 April 2009; Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, §§ 161-63, 9 October 2008; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 122-24, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bednov v. Russia, no. 21153/02, §§ 29-34, 1 June 2006).