Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18, 65214/19, 65252/19, 295/20, 798/20, 809/20, 1812/20, 2981/20, 3680/20, 6492/20, 6518/20 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SALOIDY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
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 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of ...
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 72051/17
KORNEYEVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
The authorities' failure to comply with those requirements, in the Court's view, led to it finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, §§ 34-36, 8 October 2019).Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
Applicant taken to the police station as an administrative suspect: no evidence/assessment that it was impracticable, on the spot, to compile the offence record (Art. 27.2 § 1 CAO) and achieve the objectives set out in Art. 27.1 CAO, e.g., to establish the suspect's identity (see Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17, § 34, 8 October 2019; Ryabinina and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos.
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 54381/08
TSVETKOVA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
Detention as an administrative suspect: beyond the three-hour statutory period (Art. 27.5(1)-(4) CAO) (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 121-22, 10 April 2018).
- EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 50271/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
50271/06 and 8 other applications, § 35, 2 July 2019).
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 926/08
KARELIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies).Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v.Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - absence of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of tribunal - lack of a prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings (Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).
- KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08
Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under Article 20.2 § 6 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov; fine of RUB 10, 000; Moscow City Court on 26/08/2019 (appeal decision).11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under Article 20.2 § 6 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov; fine of RUB 10, 000; Moscow City Court on 26/08/2019.
- EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 22/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
11 (2) - disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies - Conviction under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of CAO for participation on 12/06/2019 in Moscow in manifestation in support of Ivan Golunov; fine of RUB 10, 000; Moscow City Court on 22/08/2019 (appeal decision). - EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12
Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies). - EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07
NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016, concerning examination of criminal cases in the absence of a prosecuting party in the judicial proceedings governed by the Federal Code of Administrative Offences, Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against participants of solo manifestations, Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, 5 January 2016, concerning disproportionate measures taken by the authorities against organisers and participants of public assemblies). - EGMR, 26.07.2022 - 31872/19
SAIDOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 4973/18
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Saidov v. Russia [Committee], no. 31872/19, § 23, 26 July 2022), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
- OLG Bamberg, 14.06.2022 - 3 U 77/22
Keine Schadensersatzansprüche im Zusammenhang mit dem Motor EA 288 (hier: Audi …
Rechtsfragen - insbesondere solche, die Gegenstand einer grundsätzlichen Klärung durch den Bundesgerichtshof sein könnten - stellen sich in diesem Zusammenhang nicht (vgl. BGH…, Beschluss vom 29.09.2021, ZR 223/20, juris Rn. 8 Beschluss vom 29.09.2021, ZR 45/21, juris Rn. 8;… Beschluss vom 13.10.2021, ZR 179/21, juris Rn. 9; Beschluss vom 13.10.2021, ZR 295/20, juris Rn. 9;… Beschluss vom 21.03.2022, VIa ZR 334/21, juris Rn. 13). - OLG Hamm, 04.05.2021 - 34 U 84/20
Verpflichtung des Vermittlers eines Anlagevermittlungsvertrags zu richtiger und …
Aufgrund dieser - über ein übliches Blindpool-Konzept - hinausgehenden völligen Unbestimmtheit, ist eine Prüfung des Anlagekonzeptes auf Schlüssigkeit schlicht nicht möglich (vgl. Beschluss des Thüringer Oberlandesgerichts vom 25.03.2021 - 5 U 809/20). - VG Darmstadt, 22.07.2022 - L 1418/22
Syrien: Dublin Schweiz: Keine systemischen Mängel, auch wenn kein subsidiärer …
7 L 1418/22.DA.A generellen systemischen Mängel des Asylverfahrens oder der Aufnahmebedingungen im oben genannten Sinne gegeben sind (so auch VG Gießen, Beschluss vom 2 1 . September 2020 - 9 L 2981/20.GI.A;… VG Düsseldorf, Beschluss vom 2 1 . Januar 2019 - 22 L 3215/18.A -, Rn. 33, juris, m. w. N.). - VG Leipzig, 23.06.2022 - 5 K 148/20
Nigeria: Dublin: keine systemischen Mängel in Italien
Die hiergegen gerichtete Klage ist beim Verwaltungsgericht Leipzig unter dem Az. 5 K 809/20.A anhängig. - VG Leipzig, 11.12.2020 - 4 K251/20
Venezuela: Sicherung des Existenzminimums für besonders Hilfsbedürftige gefährdet
4 K 1812/20.A (Schwester des Klägers) und 4 K 271/20.A (Bruder des Klägers), der beigez o g e n e n Verwaltungsakten der Beklagten zu den Verfahren 7381463-367 (Bruder des Klägers), 7371777-367 (Schwester des Klägers) und 7786490-367 (Eltern des Klägers) sowie.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".