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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,46197
EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,46197)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.05.2009 - 2052/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,46197)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Mai 2009 - 2052/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,46197)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,46197) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 ... (51)Zitiert selbst (30)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    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 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

    KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    The Court has frequently found violations 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, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    Although the applicant's refusal to name her accomplices cannot serve as a justification for her detention, as she was not obliged to cooperate with the authorities and she cannot be blamed for having taken full advantage of her right to silence (see Mamedova, cited above, § 83, and, mutadis mutandis, YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 66, Series A no. 319-A, and W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 42, Series A no. 254-A), the Court accepts that the authorities could justifiably consider that the risk of interference with the investigation was initially present, taking into account that the applicant was suspected of being the leader of an organised criminal group.
  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

    CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

    JABLONSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
  • EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

    SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his or her detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, mutatis mutandis, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 29 and 37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

    BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
    The Court has frequently found violations 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, cited above, §§ 72 et seq.; Dolgova v. Russia, cited above, §§ 38 et seq.; Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, cited above, §§ 63 et seq.; Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, §§ 91 et seq.; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

    KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

    PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

    ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

    CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

    KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

    SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  • EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

    GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 31246/02

    OSUCH v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

    FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

    LIND v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

    BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

    Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

    KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

    GULIYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

    SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs, cited above, §§ 71-79; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, §§ 77 and 87-89; and Benediktov, §§ 29 and 30, both cited above; see also Burdov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 109-116).

    Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, 28 May 2009 (IZ-50/3, Serpukhov, Moscow Region, 2006-2008).

  • EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

    [ENG]

    The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.

    A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicant's allegations (see, among other authorities, Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).

  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

    Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

    The Court has repeatedly declined to accept the validity of similar statements on the grounds that they could not be viewed as sufficiently reliable, given the lapse of time involved and the absence of any supporting documentary evidence (see Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 52, 13 November 2007; Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, § 43, 10 July 2008; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 60, 28 May 2009; Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 95, 16 December 2010; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 99-100, 22 May 2012; and Zentsov and Others v. Russia, no. 35297/05, § 43, 23 October 2012).
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