Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 74, 11 July 2000).

  In the present case a delay referred to above coupled with the fact that neither the applicant nor his lawyer were afforded an opportunity to attend the subsequent appeal hearing of 8 January 2003 and present their arguments, although the prosecutor was given that opportunity, do not allow the Court to conclude that the applicant effectively enjoyed his rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], no. 31195/96, 25.03.1999, § 59, Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, §§ 66-67, 4 July 2000 and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, §§ 77-78, 11 July 2000).

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  However, after the evidence has been collected, that ground becomes irrelevant (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 79, 1 June 2006).

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125-131, ECHR 2000-XI; Grauzinis v. Lithuania, no. 37975/97, § 34, 10 October 2000; and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 90-93, 1 June 2006).

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  The applicant was not obliged to co-operate with the authorities and could not be blamed for having taken full advantage of his right to remain silent (see Mamedova, cited above, § 83; mutatis mutandis, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66; and W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, § 42).

  It has been the Court's constant approach that an applicant cannot be blamed for taking full advantage of the resources afforded by national law in the defence of his interests (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 66).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  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, 10.10.2000 - 37975/97

  GRAUZINIS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125-131, ECHR 2000-XI; Grauzinis v. Lithuania, no. 37975/97, § 34, 10 October 2000; and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 90-93, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 125-131, ECHR 2000-XI; Grauzinis v. Lithuania, no. 37975/97, § 34, 10 October 2000; and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 90-93, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, p. 16, § 33).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  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, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  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, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  The Court reiterates that although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

• 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, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  They are similar to several cases in which the Court found a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention owing to the combination of a lack of any reasons for ordering pre-trial detention and a failure to fix its duration (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 136-37, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-98, 24 May 2007; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 111-14, 23 April 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 92-93, 10 January 2012; and Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, § 43, 27 June 2013, 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, 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, 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, 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, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA

  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, 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, 07.05.2014 - 61510/09

  SERGEY CHEBOTAREV 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, Vladimir Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, §§ 95-98, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, §§ 65-68, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03

  AREFYEV v. RUSSIA

  As the Court has already held in a number of cases, any ex post factum 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, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO AND SHEYDYAKOV v. RUSSIA