Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Public hearing) Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Starokadomskiy v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  Although the State cannot be held responsible for every shortcoming on the part of a legal-aid lawyer and, even less, of a privately-retained lawyer (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 96, ECHR 2006-...), that does not absolve the State from the duty to organise its legal system in such a way that its courts can meet the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (see Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 129, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  The Court reiterates in this connection that hindrance in fact can contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 25, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  There is a high expectation of publicity in criminal proceedings (see Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 87, Series A no. 80).

• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  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 of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, and Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 21, Series A no. 71).
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  Thus, it may on occasion be necessary under Article 6 to limit the open and public nature of proceedings for a valid reason (see B. and P. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 36337/97 and 35974/97, § 37, ECHR 2001-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  As far as the applicant's present complaint relating to the lawfulness of detention is concerned, the Court finds it sufficient to reiterate that it is possible that detention falls within one or two subparagraphs simultaneously (see Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 143, 19 March 2009).
• EKMR, 22.10.1998 - 35580/97

  ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 27455/06

  Nor does the fact that witnesses, other participants in the trial and potential spectators would have had to undergo identity or security checks in itself deprive the hearing of its public nature (see Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 28, ECHR 2000-XII, referring to Allen v. the United Kingdom, no. 35580/97, Commission decision of 22 October 1998, unreported).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 27236/05

  [ENG]

  In such cases, the State is under an obligation to take compensatory measures to ensure that the public and the media are duly informed about the place of the hearing and are granted effective access (see Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, §§ 55-63, 13 March 2014, and Riepan v. Austria, no. 35115/97, § 30, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06

  MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  On the contrary, the Court had generally taken a flexible approach to the question of the exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of this type of complaint and had accepted a variety of domestic decisions for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, regarding - inter alia - a civil action for damages Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 66, 19 July 2007; Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, §§ 1, 15-27 and 36, 11 December 2008; and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 1, 15-20 and 31-35, 25 October 2005; see, in respect of court proceedings against the head of a remand centre Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, §§ 1, 32 and 39-40, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 06.06.2024 - 36852/11

  VUGAR ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Rn. 36 The Court therefore finds that the national authorities failed to take adequate compensatory measures to counterbalance the detrimental effect that holding the applicant's trial in a restricted area of the detention facility had on its public nature (see Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no.2), no. 27455/06, § 58, 13 March 2014).

• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 11214/07

  BOYCHUK v. RUSSIA

  However, the amount of compensation appears to be lower than what the Court generally awards in cases featuring complaints about unlawful detention (see, for recent examples, Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, 27 June 2013; Sergey Chebotarev v. Russia, no. 61510/09, 7 May 2014; Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014; Eduard Shabalin v. Russia, no. 1937/05, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 25697/13

  ZAUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in cases featuring complaints about unlawful detention (see, for recent examples, Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, 27 June 2013; Sergey Chebotarev v. Russia, no. 61510/09, 7 May 2014; Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014; Eduard Shabalin v. Russia, no. 1937/05, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 43379/04

  [ENG]

  As to the complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, the Court has on many occasions found a violation of the Convention on account of unreasonably long criminal proceedings in Russian courts (see, among many others, Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014, Aleksandr Novikov v. Russia, no. 7087/04, 11 July 2013, Moskovets v. Russia, no. 14370/03, 23 April 2009 and Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, 12 June 2008).