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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,69065
EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,69065)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.06.2009 - 23691/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,69065)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juni 2009 - 23691/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,69065)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,69065) 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 ... (23)Zitiert selbst (34)

  • EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

    SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
    However, the mere absence of a fixed residence does not give rise to a danger of absconding (see Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 68, 24 May 2007, and Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005).

    Lastly, the Court emphasises that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures of ensuring his or her appearance at the trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).

  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
    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 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, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
    As already stated, 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, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

    [ENG]

    Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, 18 June 2009 (IZ-70/1, Tomsk, 2004-2005).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

    [ENG]

    The Court considers that a mere reference to the need to carry out investigative measures, such as those referred to above, is not as such a relevant consideration justifying the continued detention (see also Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, § 117, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

    ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

    However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see, among others, Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

    MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA

    For further details concerning Russian legislation on pre-trial detention, detention pending trial and remittal of the case to the prosecution for correcting defects of the bill of indictment, see the cases of Lebedev v. Russia (no. 4493/04, §§ 33 et seq., 25 October 2007) and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia (no. 23691/06, §§ 56 et seq., 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

    A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    23691/06.
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09

    [ENG]

    Without establishing the truthfulness of each and every allegation made by the applicant, the Court has previously chosen in conditions-of-detention cases to concentrate on the allegations that have not been disputed by the respondent Government, or those in respect of which the Government did not comment, although they had been clearly and consistently formulated before the domestic authorities and later before the Court (see Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 85, 19 July 2007, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, § 73, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 6312/13

    LUTSKEVICH v. RUSSIA

    By the time the case was submitted to the court, the risk had waned owing to the probability that the length of detention would be deducted from (or would count towards) the term of imprisonment which the applicant could expect if convicted (see Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, § 112, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

    [ENG]

    However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

    MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

    He also alleged that his detention from 5 October 2004 until 14 March 2005 had been unlawful, and that this unlawfulness had in turn adversely affected the lawfulness of the relevant calculations made under Articles 109 and 255 of the CCrP relating to the ensuing period of his detention until June 2005 (see Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89-95, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

    CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

    However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
  • EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

    SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06

    A.B. v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 41545/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

    FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 56714/11

    ATIMA LIMITED v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

    QING v. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 8998/05

    SHAPOSHNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 13627/09 (anhängig)

    SHARDAKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 35205/09

    ÇIFTÇI c. TURQUIE

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