Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  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, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  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, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 19, § 43; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  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, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  From that date until 4 January 2001, when the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 1 March 2000, he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a), and therefore that period of detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see B. v Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, §§ 33-39, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  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, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  In order to assess the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court should therefore make an overall evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, § 6).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  From that date until 4 January 2001, when the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 1 March 2000, he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a), and therefore that period of detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see B. v Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, §§ 33-39, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).

• 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, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA

  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, 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, 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, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia concerning a similar set of facts (see, for example, Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin, cited above, §§ 65-70; and Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 80-83, 3 July 2008).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 42282/06

  MARKELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Similarly, the absence of any grounds or the time-limits given by judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 70-71, 2 March 2006; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-100, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-70, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, §§ 79-82, 3 July 2008; Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, §§ 129-131, 24 April 2012).
• 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

  The Court has already examined a large number of 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 by 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, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• 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, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03

  AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO AND SHEYDYAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05

  KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 31478/17

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

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 2450/04

  KONDRATYEV v. RUSSIA