Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Michail Borissowitsch Chodorkowski

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  The Court has previously held that "the fact that a person is charged with acting in criminal conspiracy is not in itself sufficient to justify long periods of detention; his personal circumstances and behaviour must always be taken into account" (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 506, 25 July 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  Such assessment should be based on personal circumstances of the detainee (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 76, 1 June 2006 and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 51, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  Such assessment should be based on personal circumstances of the detainee (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 76, 1 June 2006 and Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 51, 25 October 2007).

• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 41716/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  Accordingly, the Government's new reasons, which were raised for the first time in the proceedings before the Court, will not be taken into account (see Valeriy Kovalenko v. Russia, no. 41716/08, § 49, 29 May 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  In sum, the Court does not consider that the impugned statements contained an explicit and unqualified declaration that amounted to the determination of the applicants' guilt before they were proved guilty under the law (compare Perica Oreb, cited above, § 143 and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, § 212, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, and a premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said principle (see Perica Oreb v. Croatia, no. 20824/09, § 140, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 28724/11

  ALOUACHE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  In the Court's view, and having regard to its case-law, that period of fourteen days does not appear excessive (see Alouache v. France, no. 28724/11, § 58, 6 October 2015, and Khodorkovskiy, cited above, § 247, where the length of the appeal proceedings lasting fourteen and sixteen days respectively was found not to be in breach of the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 56111/12

  ORBAN v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  In these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with "special diligence" (see Orban v. Croatia, no. 56111/12, § 62, 19 December 2013, and Segeda, cited above, § 70).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 41545/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  In so far as the domestic courts relied on the fact that the applicants held managerial posts in the companies implicated in the criminal proceedings, the Court agrees that this factor may be relevant for the purposes of assessing whether they might obstruct the proceedings by destroying evidence or even reoffend (compare Segeda v. Russia, no. 41545/06, § 64, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 28369/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 36609/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 25784/09

  CAPSKÝ AND JESCHKEOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 65546/09

  HELDENBURG v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 57990/10

  GORGADZE v. GEORGIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  In this connection, the Court would once again stress that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 59, 8 February 2018; Novruz Ismayilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16794/05, § 53, 20 February 2014; and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 59, 20 February 2014).
• 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.

  The Court has previously found such delays to be excessive (see, for example, Snyatovskiy v. Russia, no. 10341/07, § 65, 13 December 2016, and contrast Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 75, 8 February 2018).

• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 58444/15

  GRUBNYK v. UKRAINE

  It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, and a premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the principle (see Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 81, 8 February 2018, with further references).

• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 37816/12

  ZEYNALLI v. AZERBAIJAN and 1 other application

  The former infringe the presumption of innocence, whereas the latter have been regarded as unobjectionable in various situations examined by the Court (see Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, §§ 81-82, 8 February 2018, and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, § 136, 17 September 2020).
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 35511/20

  GHERARDI MARTIRI v. SAN MARINO

  At the same time, Rule 62 § 2 in fine also protects the Court and its own impartiality, by ensuring that should the friendly-settlement negotiations fail, their content will not prejudice the outcome of the contentious proceedings (see Heldenburg v. the Czech Republic (just satisfaction), no. 65546/09, § 25, 9 February 2017, and Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 42, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  46398/09 and 2 others, §§ 74-77, 24 April 2014; and Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, §§ 83-85, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 22738/20

  JOVANOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  The Court notes, however, that these reasons were never relied on by the domestic courts in the relevant decisions and accordingly cannot be taken into account (compare, mutatis mutandis, Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 61, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 25190/18

  DOCEVSKA-BOZHINOVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The relevant principles regarding the applicant's complaint about a lack of speediness of the proceedings for review of her detention, which falls to be examined under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, have been summarised in, for example, Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 33566/11, § 73, 8 February 2018) and Shakurov v. Russia (no. 55822/10, § 180, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 77805/14

  SHIPOVIKJ v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 1 other application

  A detailed description of the relevant domestic law is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (no. 33566/11, §§ 33-38, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 18678/18

  PESHOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 2 other applications

  The courts did not demonstrate the existence of any concrete fact in support of their conclusions that there was a risk of flight (compare also Ramkovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 33566/11, § 63, 8 February 2018).
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 54127/16

  PLICHTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 72408/14

  KUZMANOVIK v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR - 18455/24 (anhängig)

  ZDRAVEV v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 59133/16

  NEVÉ v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 54892/16

  BADULLAH v. THE NETHERLANDS