Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56025
EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,56025)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.10.2011 - 23215/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,56025)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Oktober 2011 - 23215/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,56025)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56025) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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

 
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 ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

  • 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, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    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, 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, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

    B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
    Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings in order, for example, to protect the safety or privacy of witnesses, or to promote the free exchange of information and opinion in the pursuit of justice (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III, with further references).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

    McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

    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, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

    KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI

    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, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
    As to the risk of obstruction of the proceedings, the national authorities should have regard to pertinent factors such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings and their resumption or any other specific indications justifying the fear that the applicant might abuse the regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed, for instance, at the falsification or destruction of evidence (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 36, Series A no. 254-A).
  • EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

    CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    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, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

    CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
    It is however necessary, among other conditions, that the danger be a plausible one and the measure appropriate, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the past history and the personality of the person concerned (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A no. 225, and Paradysz v. France, no. 17020/05, § 71, 29 October 2009).
  • EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

    PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

    PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

    DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

    PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

    VLADIMIR KRIVONOSOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

    SVETLANA KAZMINA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

    Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen,

  • 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, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

    SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 9418/13

    KARTOYEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

    Elle rappelle également que, dans de nombreuses affaires, elle a conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 après avoir constaté que les juridictions internes avaient ordonné l'exclusion du public des débats en motivant cette mesure simplement par la présence de documents classés secrets dans un dossier judiciaire ou par la nécessité d'assurer la sécurité des parties à la procédure, sans évaluer la nécessité de cette exclusion en mettant en balance le principe de la publicité des débats et les impératifs de protection de l'ordre public, de la sécurité nationale ou des intérêts de la justice (Belachev c. Russie, no 28617/03, §§ 79-88, 4 décembre 2008, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, §§ 152-160, 11 octobre 2011, Raks c. Russie, no 20702/04, §§ 43-51, 11 octobre 2011, Pichugin c. Russie, no 38623/03, §§ 185-192, 23 octobre 2012, Artemov c. Russie, no 14945/03, §§ 43-51, 3 avril 2014, Sheynoyev c. Russie [comité], no 65783/09, §§ 14-16, 25 septembre 2018, 1zmestyev c. Russie, no 74141/10, §§ 82-95, 27 août 2019, et Maslennikov c. Russie [comité], no 42301/11, §§ 15-31, 8 décembre 2020).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 18785/13

    KOUTALIDIS c. GRÈCE

    La Cour a aussi à plusieurs reprises considéré que la référence de manière stéréotypée à la gravité des infractions et au risque de commission de nouvelles infractions ne suffit pas pour justifier le maintien en détention ni pour dispenser les autorités d'examiner la situation particulière du requérant et d'envisager des mesures alternatives à la détention (Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011; Khodorkovskiy c. Russie, no 5829/04, 31 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, Valeriy Samoylov c. Russie, no 57541/09, 24 janvier 2012, et Vyatkin c. Russie, no 18813/06, § 53, 11 avril 2013).
  • 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, 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

  • 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, 06.09.2016 - 12863/14

    MEKRAS c. GRÈCE

  • 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, 13.10.2020 - 72444/14

    KREKHALEV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

    NAZAROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 76629/14

    CLEMENTS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

    LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 45847/15

    KOTSOCHILIS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 7087/04

    ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht