Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILKOSKI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207; Muller v. France, 17 March 1997, § 43, Reports 1997-II; YaÄŸcı and Sargın, cited above, § 52; and Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 73, 8 June 2006).

  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the present judgment constitutes sufficient reparation (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 62, Series A no. 207, and Muller v. France, 17 March 1997, § 54, Reports 1997-II).

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in the domestic courts' decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 72, 8 June 2006; Ilijkov, cited above, § 86; and Labita, cited above, § 152).

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207; Muller v. France, 17 March 1997, § 43, Reports 1997-II; YaÄŸcı and Sargın, cited above, § 52; and Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 73, 8 June 2006).

• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  No reason was given why the consequences and hazards of absconding would have seemed to the applicants to be a lesser evil than continued imprisonment (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  The practice of issuing collective detention orders has already been found by the Court to be incompatible, in itself, with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it would permit the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each individual member of the group (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 14258/03

  PARIZOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  The Court points out that under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court "the applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents", failing which "the Chamber may reject the claim in whole or in part" (see Parizov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14258/03, § 71, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  In such cases, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 4).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 68864/01

  MERGER AND CROS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.08.2026 - 30915/23

  ALEKSIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  (e) When one or more applicants have attempted a remedy without success, the remaining applicants are not required to attempt to use that remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, § 47, 20 April 2010; Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 46, 28 October 2010; Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 23.06.2026 - 34261/23

  TALESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  It therefore considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the fact that the third applicant did not raise that complaint before the Supreme Court cannot be regarded as a failure on his part to exhaust domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, §§ 46-48, 20 April 2010; Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 46, 28 October 2010; and Elmazova and Others v. North Macedonia, nos.
• EGMR, 13.10.2026 - 52490/21

  RASHKOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 5 other applications

  Rn. 22 The relevant general principles regarding the requirement that there must be "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify continued detention have been summarised in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016, with further references), Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 45-49, 24 April 2014) and Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 28169/08, §§ 55-57, 28 October 2010).

• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 17808/19

  PAKETOVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Consequently, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the remaining applicants were not required to avail themselves of that remedy because it would have been bound to fail (see, mutatis mutandis, Khamzayev and Others v. Russia, no. 1503/02, § 155, 3 May 2011, and Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 46, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 39061/11

  THIMOTHAWES c. BELGIQUE

  La jurisprudence de la Cour exige que l'on démontre au cas par cas la nécessité objective d'un placement en détention dans le cadre de l'article 5. Pour la majorité, la manière laconique et stéréotypée des décisions de privation de liberté ne pose aucun problème au sens de l'article 5. La Cour a conclu à la violation dans les affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer des faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (voir l'abondante jurisprudence de la Cour à cet égard, par exemple ; Solmaz c. Turquie, no 27561/02, § 41, 16 janvier 2007, Cahit Demirel c. Turquie, no 18623/03, § 24, 7 juillet 2009, Filiz c. Turquie, no 28074/08, § 61, 4 mars 2014, Tretyakov c. Ukraine, no 16698/05, § 59, 29 septembre 2011 ; Vasilkoski et autres c. « ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine ", no 28169/08, § 64, 28 octobre 2010, Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 67-68, 5 novembre 2015 ; Buzadji c. République de Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, § 122, CEDH 2016).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 629/11

  ARA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among other authorities, Smirnova, cited above, § 70; Vasilkoski and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 28169/08, § 64, 28 October 2010; and Tretyakov v. Ukraine, no. 16698/05, § 59, 29 September 2011).
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 57325/19

  JANAKIESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 60 Lastly, it is noteworthy that in previous cases against the respondent State concerning complaints lodged under Article 5 § 3 (see Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, 28 October 2010; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 46398/09 and 2 others, 50570/09 and 50576/09, 24 April 2014; and Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, 8 February 2018) the Government did not argue that a compensation claim was an effective remedy for the purposes of that provision.
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 77796/17

  TALESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 5 other applications

  The applicant challenged his detention through the two-tier system of judicial review, which is to be regarded, in principle, as an effective remedy as regards pre-trial detention (see Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 45, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11811/20

  ELMAZOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  It therefore considers that in the particular circumstances of the case, also taking into account the nature of the complaints pertaining to an alleged practice of Roma segregation in the schools in question, the fact that some applicants did not use this remedy cannot be regarded as a failure on their part to exhaust the domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 46, 28 October 2010).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 32088/11

  ALASGAROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, in the specific circumstances, the Court does not see how the submission of a cassation appeal on the same legal matter by each applicant, be it the family members or the remaining heads of families, could have led to a different outcome (compare Laska and Lika v. Albania, nos. 12315/04 and 17605/04, §§ 46-47, 20 April 2010; Vasilkoski and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 28169/08, § 46, 28 October 2010; Khamzayev and Others v. Russia, no. 1503/02, § 155, 3 May 2011; and Hasanali Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 42858/11, § 30, 9 June 2022).
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 45959/09

  MITROV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 62870/13

  BILBIJA AND BLAZEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12

  ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  RAMKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 22738/20

  JOVANOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 18.06.2026 - 30078/21

  ATANASOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 55005/14

  DEMIRYÜREK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 8701/21

  PINKAS AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 8784/11

  SEJDIJI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 44286/12

  BADALYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 46398/09

  DIMITAR MILADINOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 2 other …
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 18678/18

  PESHOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 46398/09

  MILADINOV AND OTHERS AGAINST "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 42520/17

  SHAPKAROSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 72408/14

  KUZMANOVIK v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 50520/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 26853/19 (anhängig)

  MIJALKOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA