Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  The Court considers that these eight periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  The Court considers that these eight periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  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 - 27193/02

  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, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  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, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  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 re-offending 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, § 431; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  The question whether the reasons for the decisions were sufficient and relevant is analysed below in connection with the issue of compliance with Article 5 § 3. The Court has already accepted on a number of occasions that similar decisions by a prosecutor or a district attorney were compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, § 25).

• BFH, 07.11.2013 - X K 13/12

  Unangemessene Dauer eines finanzgerichtlichen Klageverfahrens

  Ganz überwiegend sind diese Entscheidungen von vornherein nicht zu Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK ergangen, der den Anspruch auf Entscheidung "innerhalb angemessener Frist" enthält, sondern zu Freiheitsentziehungen i.S. des Art. 5 EMRK, der in Abs. 4 einen Anspruch auf gerichtliche Entscheidung "innerhalb kurzer Frist" vorsieht (zu Strafverfahren in der Russischen Förderation vgl. Entscheidungen des EGMR vom 7. April 2005  54071/00 --Rokhlina--; vom 8. November 2005  6847/02 --Khudoyorov--; vom 24. Mai 2007  27193/02 --Ignatov--, Rz 111; vom 9. Oktober 2008  62936/00 --Moiseyev--, Rz 160, und vom 26. November 2009  13591/05 --Nazarov--, Rz 126; zur zwangsweisen Unterbringung eines als "Psychopathen" eingestuften Straftäters in einer britischen Klinik vgl. EGMR-Urteil vom 20. Februar 2003  50272/99 --Hutchison Reid--, Rz 79).
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  In the case of Mamedova, cited above, which, like the present case, concerned appeal proceedings, it found that the "speediness" requirement was not complied with where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days respectively, stressing that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see Mamedova, § 96; see also, for longer delays, Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 112-114, 24 May 2007, and Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, §§ 104-106, 30 July 2009).
• 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, 13.01.2022 - 42282/06

  MARKELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  When returning the file to the prosecutor for remedying defects in the bill of indictment, the first-instance court failed to indicate reasons and set a time-limit for extension of the applicants' detention (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2005 X (extracts) and Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 78-82, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03

  MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA

  The applicant, referring to the cases of Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, § 149, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)) and Ignatov v. Russia (no. 27193/02, § 80, 24 May 2007), claimed that the mere fact that the applicant's case had been transferred from the prosecution to the trial court was not sufficient to make it "lawful".
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court has held that the absence of any grounds 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. Permitting a prisoner to languish in detention without a judicial decision based on concrete grounds and without setting a specific limit on the duration of that detention would be tantamount to overriding Article 5, a provision which makes detention an exceptional departure from the right to liberty and one that is only permissible in exhaustively enumerated and strictly defined cases (see also Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 112-14, 25 June 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, §§ 112-14, 23 April 2009; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, §§ 79-81, 24 May 2007; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 142, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 31478/17

  PROKOPYEV v. RUSSIA

  The starting point for the calculation is the date of the relevant appeal decision or, if the detention was not covered by any judicial order, the date on which the alleged continuous violation of the right to liberty ceased to exist (see Strelets v. Russia, no. 28018/05, § 67, 6 November 2012; Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 102, 5 June 2012; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, § 107, 25 June 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 73, 3 July 2008; and Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, § 71, 24 May 2007).