Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIYAZOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (28)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 38124/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  The applicant submitted that his case was similar to the case of Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 38124/07, 17 December 2009), where a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) had been found in comparable circumstances.

  Second, the Court has already found that Article 108 of the CCrP could not serve as a suitable legal basis for the prosecutor's decision to place the applicant in custody on the ground that an arrest warrant had been issued against him by a foreign court, whilst Article 108 § 4 of the CCrP taken in conjunction with of Articles 5 § 48 and 31 § 2 of the CCrP refers to a court established and operating under Russian law (see Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 38124/07, §§ 73-74, 17 December 2009, and Elmuratov v. Russia, no. 66317/09, §§ 108-109, 3 March 2011).

• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  For a summary of the other relevant domestic law provisions and decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court and the Russian Supreme Court, see Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 43-65, 5 June 2012.

  It has accordingly to be ascertained whether the interval between the hearing of 27 December 2010 reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant's detention, and the prosecutor's decision of 29 April 2011 ordering his release can be considered compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4. The Court observes that in the recent case of Khodzhamberdiyev it found that the four-month interval between the periodic reviews of detention was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 25 and 108-114, 5 June 2012).

• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV), the Court considers it reasonable to award the amount claimed.

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  The proceedings by which the applicant's detention was extended amounted to a form of periodic review of a judicial character (see, in so far as relevant, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  However, where an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been instituted, the decisions on the lawfulness of detention must follow at "reasonable intervals" (see, among others, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, §§ 75 and 77, Series A no. 244, and Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, § 42, 21 June 2005).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  In these circumstances, and given that the detention orders of 4 May and 5 July 2011 did not address the detention issue other than in the context of the necessity to ensure the applicant's administrative removal, the Court agrees with the assessment of the appeal court, which in the final instance acknowledged serious defects in the initial administrative removal order of 4 May 2011, reproduced in the decision on 5 July 2011 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the context of Article 5 § 1 (c), Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 111, 11 October 2011, and contrast Alim, § 58, cited above, and Lui, §§ 81-83, cited above).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  Turning to the period under review, the Court points out that, unlike in the cases mentioned above, from 27 December 2010 to 29 April 2011 the applicant's detention was ordered by a competent court, and the extension order contained time-limits, in line with the requirements of Article 109 of the CCrP (see, for comparison, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 73-75, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  It has been the Court's constant approach that permitting a detained person 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, among many others in the context of Article 5 § 1 (c), Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 130, 24 April 2012, Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, §§ 45-47, 9 July 2009, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, cited above, § 142).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  At the same time, the Court reiterates that in earlier cases it has been prepared to accept that such a flaw, taken separately, did not amount to a gross and obvious irregularity (see, in the context of a failure to give reasons to justify the necessity of holding an applicant in custody, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 57, 27 September 2011, and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 81, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 10816/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  ALIM v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 49098/99

  GAIDJURGIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 15303/09

  Auslieferungshaft, Auslieferung, Russische Föderation, Usbekistan, erniedrigende …
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 27806/02

  STAMATIOS KARAGIANNIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 30024/96

  SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, it cannot be considered on the basis of the available material that the ensuing period of detention was tainted by any irregularities or arbitrariness, which were comparably serious as those identified by the Court in the cases of Menesheva or Tsirlis and Kouloumpas (see also, by way of comparison, Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, §§ 175-186, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 6287/10

  HAMMERTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  By contrast in Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 180, 16 October 2012, the first instance court's failure to establish the facts in their entirety, taken together with a failure to give reasons and specify time-limits, as well as the applicant's inability to participate in the proceedings because he was neither represented nor provided with appropriate translations, was held to amount to a gross and obvious irregularity.
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir considéré dans une série d'affaires russes concernant la détention à des fins d'extradition fondée sur l'article 466 § 2 du CPP que cette disposition ne satisfaisait pas aux exigences de clarté et de prévisibilité pour constituer une « loi'au sens de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention (voir Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 175-181, 2 octobre 2012, Niyazov c. Russie, no 27843/11, § 118-125, 16 octobre 2012, Bakoyev c. Russie, no 30225/11, §§ 142-150, 5 février 2013, Zokhidov, précité, §§ 155-159, Yefimova c. Russie, no 39786/09, §§ 262-267, 19 février 2013, Oshlakov c. Russie, no 56662/09, §§ 107-111, 3 avril 2014, et Akram Karimov, précité, §§ 149-151).

• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  [ENG]

  The Court has already established that Article 61 of the Minsk Convention does not establish any rules on the procedure to be followed when remanding a person in custody (see Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 120, 16 October 2012) and can serve as a legal basis for detention only in conjunction with corresponding domestic legal provisions establishing the grounds and the procedure for ordering detention, as well as applicable time-limits (see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 171, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10

  ABIDOV AGAINST RUSSIA AND 19 OTHER CASES

  27843/11.
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 44292/09

  GVINIASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remaining complaints in respect of the above-mentioned hearings (see, mutatis mutandis, Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, §§ 71 and 72, 12 November 2015; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 195, 16 October 2012; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 106, 28 June 2011; and Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 141, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  It is noteworthy that in a number of previous cases against Russia, the Court has already accepted that proceedings for the extension of detention pending extradition before a first-instance court amounted to a form of periodic review of a judicial nature (see, for instance, Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 109-10, 5 June 2012; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 176, 3 July 2012; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 153, 16 October 2012; and Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, §§ 182-83, 20 June 2013).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  L'absence de toute base légale à la détention sur une période longue est incompatible avec le principe de la protection contre l'arbitraire consacré par l'article 5 § 1 (Stepanov c. Russie, no 33872/05, § 73, 25 septembre 2012, Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, § 135 in fine, CEDH 2005-X (extraits), et Niyazov c. Russie, no 27843/11, § 124, 16 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 69235/11

  K. v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances the Court concludes that the periods in question cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially given that their duration was entirely attributable to the authorities (see, for similar reasoning, Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 163, 16 October 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may claim to be a "victim" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention (compare Karimov, cited above, §§ 86-91; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, §§ 104-107, 16 October 2012; Tukhtamurodov, cited above, §§ 37-39; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 61, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 43925/16

  MANUKYAN AND AYVAZYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 35237/14

  YERMAKOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 43009/10

  AKHADOV v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 82348/17

  D.S. v. ARMENIA