Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the part of the applicant's complaint concerning the detention after 24 December 2003 must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 74, 3 July 2008, and Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, § 63, 9 December 2008).

  The Court further observes that the Supreme Court's decision of 25 September 2003 could not have constituted a "lawful" basis for the applicant's detention in the preceding period (see Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 82, 3 July 2008, with further references).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the impugned period cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").

 
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court therefore considers that the impugned period cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  It must be examined with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding and reoffending or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule requiring domestic remedies to be exhausted is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  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, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  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, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  The Court has already held in a number of cases that any ex post facto authorisation of detention is incompatible with the "right to security of person" as it is necessarily tainted with arbitrariness (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, § 99, 24 May 2007, and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 69, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  In the case of Mamedova, cited above, which, like the present case, concerned appeal proceedings, it found that the "speediness" requirement was not complied with where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days respectively, stressing that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see Mamedova, § 96; see also, for longer delays, Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 112-114, 24 May 2007, and Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, §§ 104-106, 30 July 2009).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans les affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en invoquant essentiellement la gravité des charges et en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer des faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, et Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009 et autres).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans des affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en se fondant essentiellement sur la gravité des charges et sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, CEDH 2006-XII, Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, 2 mars 2006, Michketkoul et autres c. Russie, no 36911/02, 24 mai 2007, Choukhardine c. Russie, no 65734/01, 28 juin 2007, Belov c. Russie, no 22053/02, 3 juillet 2008, Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, 30 juillet 2009, Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, et Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, 27 novembre 2012).
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans les affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en invoquant essentiellement la gravité des charges et en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer de faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, et G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 29747/09

  TSITSIRIGGOS c. GRÈCE

  Or la Cour a déjà jugé que la régularisation a posteriori d'une détention est incompatible avec le « droit à la sûreté'et entachée d'arbitraire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Khoudoyorov c. Russie, précité, § 142, Soloviev c. Russie, no 2708/02, § 99, 24 mai 2007, et Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, § 70, 30 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires, dont celles dirigées contre la Russie, sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention quant aux conditions de détention et de transport de détenus (voir, par exemple, Dudchenko c. Russie, no 37717/05, §§ 116-123, 7 novembre 2017, Yaroslav Belousov c. Russie, nos 2653/13 et 60980/14, §§ 103-111, 4 octobre 2016, M.S. c. Russie, no 8589/08, §§ 71-77, 10 juillet 2014, Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, §§ 36-44, 11 avril 2013, et Ananyev et autres c. Russie, nos 42525/07 et 60800/08, §§ 160-166, 10 janvier 2012), de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention quant à la durée de la détention provisoire de détenus (G. c. Russie, no 42526/07, §§ 114-119, 21 juin 2016, Korkin c. Russie, no 48416/09, §§ 88-96, 12 novembre 2015, Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, §§ 108-111, 27 novembre 2012, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 121-133, 11 octobre 2011, et Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, §§ 88-98, 30 juillet 2009) ainsi que de l'article 8 de la Convention quant au droit de détenus de bénéficier de visites familiales en prison (Andrey Smirnov c. Russie, no 43149/10, §§ 39-43, 13 février 2018, Moïsseïev c. Russie, no 62936/00, §§ 248-251, 9 octobre 2008, et Vlassov c. Russie, no 78146/01, §§ 123-127, 12 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA

  It has found violations of that Article on the grounds that domestic courts had extended applicants" detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae, without addressing applicants" specific situations or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention, relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  PLOTNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

  MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA