Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TARAKANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tarakanov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  The mere fact that the outcome of the proceedings was not favourable to the applicant does not render this remedy ineffective (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 89, ECHR 2000-II; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 91, 10 April 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 50224/99

  SIDLOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  The Court reiterates further that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006).
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 2452/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  The Court reiterates that complaints about short periods of detention may be (and, in some circumstances, may exclusively be) adequately protected by recourse to a retrospective remedy (see M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, § 84, 19 April 2012).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02

  SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  The mere fact that the outcome of the proceedings was not favourable to the applicant does not render this remedy ineffective (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 89, ECHR 2000-II; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, § 91, 10 April 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  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 a 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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  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 a 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, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  With effect from this date his detention was no longer covered by Article 5 § 1 (c) (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 92, 8 February 2005, with further references), but was transformed into detention under Article 5 § 1 (a), at least in the Convention terms.
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  No exceptions to that rule are permitted or provided for, no matter how short the duration of the detention (see Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, § 69, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  The Court has previously found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in many Russian cases where the domestic court has maintained a custodial measure in respect of applicants, without indicating any particular reason for such a decision or setting a specific time-limit for the continued detention or for a periodic review of the preventive measure (see Strelets v. Russia, no. 28018/05, § 72, 6 November 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03

  AREFYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  The Court concludes that the applicant afforded the national authorities an adequate opportunity to examine his complaint raised before the Court, and that the appeal decision of 9 February 2005 must be retained as the "final decision" for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Arefyev v. Russia, no. 29464/03, § 69, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29448/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 50271/06

  [ENG]

  They argued that the amount of compensation was comparable to the amounts awarded by the Court in cases concerning short lengths of detention (they referred to Sergey Solovyev v. Russia, no. 22152/05, 25 September 2012, and Tarakanov v. Russia, no. 20403/05, 28 November 2013).
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 21153/02

  BEDNOV ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  20403/05.
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 23540/15

  LYUFI v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Tarakanov v. Russia (no. 20403/05, §§ 45-49, 28 November 2013) and Eduard Shabalin v. Russia (no. 1937/05, §§ 33-37, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 37858/08

  [ENG]

  However, the Court notes that this amount is much lower than the amount it generally awards in similar Russian cases (compare, for example, Sergey Solovyev v. Russia, no. 22152/05, § 71, 25 September 2012, and Tarakanov v. Russia, no. 20403/05, § 63, 28 November 2013).