Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BATALOV v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 30789/04

  If such proceedings are not pursued with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, ECHR 1996-V, §§ 112-13; see also Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, 9.10.2003, ECHR 2003-X, § 146).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 30789/04

  Even flaws in the detention order do not necessarily render the detention itself unlawful within the meaning of this provision (see, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, 31.7.2000, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 06.01.2000 - 49107/99

  VISOCKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 30789/04

  Finally, the eventual annulment of the expulsion order on 19 April 2005 on humanitarian grounds does not, as such, retroactively affect the validity of the applicant's detention prior to that date (see, mutatis mutandis, the Jecius case cited above, ibid; Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, ECHR 1996-III, §§ 42-47; Visockas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49107/99, 6.1.2000; Kamantauskas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 45012/98, 29.2.2000).

• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39549/02

  BENIASHVILI v. RUSSIA AND GEORGIA

  Consequently, by the time of his transfer to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, the applicant obviously knew the reasons for his international search, arrest and continued detention and possessed sufficient details about the charge of murder which had been brought against him in 1998 (compare, for instance, with Ryabikin v. Russia (dec.), no. 8320/04, ECHR 10 April 2007 and Batalov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30789/04, 15 November 2005).