Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55267) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
Wird zitiert von ... (18) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79
PIERSACK v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
It also renders unnecessary the separate examination of the applicant's allegation, on account of the same facts, that his trial court was not "established by law" which, although made in a different legal context, coincides in substance with the complaint concerning independence and impartiality (see Findlay, cited above, § 80, and Piersack v. Belgium, 1 October 1982, § 33, Series A no. 53). - EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80
DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
In similar circumstances the Court concluded that defects that took place in the first-instance proceedings had not been cured by a higher court which upheld conviction and sentence (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, § 33, Series A no. 86; Findlay, cited above, § 79, and Kyprianou, cited above, § 134). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87
HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
According to the Court's case-law, the disclosure of the State's interest in a given weapon and that of the corresponding technical knowledge, which may give some indication of the state of progress in its manufacture, were capable of causing considerable damage to national security (they referred to Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 45, Series A no. 252).
- EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
For the domestic law regulating detention during criminal proceedings see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2009-... in respect of the period until 1 July 2002, and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, §§ 107-113, 24 June 2010 in respect of the period since 1 July 2002. - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
What is determinant is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, 24 May 1989, § 48, Series A no. 154, and Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, § 118, ECHR 2005-XIII). - EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88
FEY v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
The existence of "impartiality" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 must be determined according to a subjective test, that is, on the basis of the personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case, and also according to an objective test, that is, ascertaining whether the judge offered guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect (see Fey v. Austria, 24 February 1993, § 28, Series A no. 255-A). - EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
For the domestic law regulating detention during criminal proceedings see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2009-... in respect of the period until 1 July 2002, and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, §§ 107-113, 24 June 2010 in respect of the period since 1 July 2002.
- LG Krefeld, 14.08.2017 - 21 StVK 218/16
Hartmut Hopp: Früherer Arzt der Colonia Dignidad muss in Deutschland in Haft
Dabei können eine Vielzahl von Faktoren, wie z.B. zur Verfügung stehende Ressourcen, die Qualifikation von Richtern, Interessenskonflikte oder die Zugänglichkeit des Gerichts für die Parteien, Berücksichtigung finden (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 03.05.2011 bzw. 28.11.2011 - 30024/02 -, Sutyagin ./. Russia, Rn. 187). - 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)).
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-216/21
Generalanwalt Emiliou: Ein Verfahren für die Beförderung von Richtern, das auf …
34 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 3. Mai 2011, Sutyagin/Russland, (CE:ECHR:2011:0503JUD003002402, § 183). - EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07
SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the basis of the gravity of the charges and using formulaic reasoning without addressing the specific facts of the case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 106 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; 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; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 142-49, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10
DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
It has found violations of that Article on the grounds that domestic courts had extended applicants" detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae, without addressing applicants" specific situations or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007). - EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09
YUGAY 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 and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention, relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007). - EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10
RODKIN v. RUSSIA
The Court has already examined a large number of applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012). - EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10
DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 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; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012). - EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08
PLOTNIKOV 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 and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention, relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other examples, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007). - EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09
RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09
MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09
BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12
MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10
SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10
ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08
NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13
LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,60221) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SUTYAGIN c. RUSSIE
Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
Partiellement recevable Partiellement irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
Even assuming so, the applicant cannot be criticised for not having made use of a legal remedy which would have been directed to essentially the same end (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 11, § 23; Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 47, ECHR 1999-II; and Miailhe v. France (no. 1), judgment of 25 February 1993, Series A no. 256-C, p. 87, § 27). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
In criminal matters the provision of full, detailed information concerning the charges against a defendant, and consequently the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter, is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II, and Mattocia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, § 58, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82
KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
Particulars of the offence play a crucial role in the criminal process, in that it is from the moment of their service that the suspect is formally put on written notice of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him (see Kamasinski v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168, pp. 36-37, § 79).
- EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 2 cannot prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 38). - EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78
Adolf ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
Nevertheless, whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see Adolf v. Austria, judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, pp. 17-19, §§ 36-41, and Daktaras, cited above, § 41). - EGMR, 24.05.1989 - 10486/83
HAUSCHILDT c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
Suspicion and a formal finding of guilt are not to be treated as being the same (see Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, pp. 21-22, §§ 49-50). - EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88
FEY v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
Therefore, what matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge (see Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30, and Sainte-Marie v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A, p. 32, § 32). - EGMR, 17.07.2001 - 29900/96
SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
In the absence of any indications to the contrary this time was manifestly sufficient for the applicant to react to those charges and organise his defence in a practical and effective manner (see, a contrario, Sadak and Others v. Turkey, nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, § 57, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 23969/94
MATTOCCIA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
In criminal matters the provision of full, detailed information concerning the charges against a defendant, and consequently the legal characterisation that the court might adopt in the matter, is an essential prerequisite for ensuring that the proceedings are fair (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999-II, and Mattocia v. Italy, no. 23969/94, § 58, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12981/87
SAINTE-MARIE c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 30024/02
Therefore, what matters is the extent and nature of the pre-trial measures taken by the judge (see Fey v. Austria, judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, § 30, and Sainte-Marie v. France, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 253-A, p. 32, § 32).