Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Romanova v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (75)Zitiert selbst (33)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  The national authorities must establish the existence of specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 62 and 63, ECHR 2009-...).

  However, it could be that having learnt of the non-authorised surveillance at the close of the preliminary investigation, the applicant considered that she would be able to usefully raise the related complaint at the trial before bringing the matter before the Court in May 2004 (see, mutatis mutandis, Skorobogatykh v. Russia, no. 4871/03, §§ 32-34, 22 December 2009; Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, §§ 30-33, 2 October 2008; and Bykov v. Russia (dec.), no. 4378/02, 7 September 2006).

• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  There is a high expectation of publicity in ordinary criminal proceedings, which may well concern dangerous individuals, notwithstanding the attendant security problems (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 87, Series A no. 80).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  In particular, the Court is not competent to deal with an application alleging that errors of law or fact have been committed by the domestic courts, except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, § 45, Series A no. 140).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  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 and 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, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  The Court reiterates that the risk of flight should be assessed with reference to various factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which he is being prosecuted (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  The Court observes at the outset that the applicant did not raise a general challenge to the legislative regime concerning secret surveillance measures (see, by contrast, Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, §§ 119 et seq., ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 28901/95

  ROWE AND DAVIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  It will therefore confine its examination to the question of whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see Rowe and Davis v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28901/95, § 59, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  Thus, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  In addition, detention will continue to be legitimate only if public order actually remains threatened; its continuation cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Kemmache v. France, 27 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 218, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 91, Series A no. 241-A).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  By rendering the administration of justice transparent, publicity contributes to fulfilling the aim of Article 6 § 1, namely a fair trial (see Gautrin and Others v. France, 20 May 1998, § 42, Reports 1998-III, and Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 4871/03

  SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06

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

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 18273/04

  BARRY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

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

  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 had 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 others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; 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; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Since the Russian legal system offers no effective remedy in respect of complaints about conditions of pre-trial detention, conditions of transport between the remand prison and the courthouse and conditions of detention in the courthouse (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 119; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 84, 11 October 2011; and Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 104, 12 February 2009), the six-month period should be calculated from the end of the situation complained of.
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  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 others, Khudoyorov, cited above; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; 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, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  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, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; 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; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016; and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 138-40, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]

  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, 12.02.2013 - 152/04

  [ENG]

  The Court took into consideration that a fresh detention order was issued more than a month later to validate the preceding period of detention, and that neither the appeal decision nor this fresh detention order concerning this period of detention contained reasons (see Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, §§ 108-112, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  Before excluding the public from criminal proceedings, courts must make specific findings that closure is necessary to protect a compelling governmental interest and limit secrecy to the extent necessary to preserve such an interest (see Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 83, 4 December 2008, and Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 155, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  23215/02.
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 7610/15

  VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  But the presence of classified materials in the case file of a court case cannot automatically justify excluding the public from the whole proceedings (see, albeit in different contexts, Belashev v. Russia, no. 28617/03, § 83, 4 December 2008; Nevskaya v. Russia, no. 24273/04, §§ 38-39, 11 October 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 155, 11 October 2011; and Nikolova and Vandova, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  BEKETOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 26746/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 60882/12 (anhängig)

  AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13

  KARTOYEV c. RUSSIE et 2 autres affaires
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 4336/06

  MANSUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10

  SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

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

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 47934/17

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 27728/08

  BYKOVTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 29334/11

  LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 34180/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 6277/06

  LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 56097/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 47537/11

  SKOROBOGATOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 65783/09

  SHENOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

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

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 7955/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 69863/13

  DAVLYASHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

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

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 676/09

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09

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

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 38911/07

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

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 41472/06

  CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 12863/14

  MEKRAS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 7243/10

  YEVSTRATOV AND RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 24723/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3243/06

  LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 72444/14

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

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 76629/14

  CLEMENTS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 7087/04

  ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 63392/09

  SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 25071/07

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

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 80015/12

  DEVTEROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 45847/15

  KOTSOCHILIS c. GRÈCE