Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (28)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  The national authorities must establish the existence of specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighed the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 62 and 63, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the risk of flight should be assessed with reference to various factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which he is being prosecuted (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  Indeed, it would have been preferable that the matter be raised immediately before an impartial authority or public official independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they served, namely the detention facility mentioned above (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 325, ECHR 2007-II, and OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91 and 92, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  Thus, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  The Court reiterates that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  The courts should have analysed pertinent factors, such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings, the applicant's personality, his behaviour before and after the arrest and any other specific indications justifying the fear that he might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed at falsifying or destroying evidence or manipulating victims (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 36, Series A no. 254-A, and Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 70, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  As to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court has affirmed on numerous occasions that the possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B, and Allen v. the United Kingdom, no. 18837/06, § 38, 30 March 2010).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  It is however necessary, among other conditions, that the danger be a plausible one and the measure appropriate, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the past history and the personality of the person concerned (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A no. 225, and Paradysz v. France, no. 17020/05, § 71, 29 October 2009).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  It does not appear, however, that her absence was imputable to the State (see, by contrast, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 101, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02

  PSHEVECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  However, the mere absence of a fixed residence does not give rise to a danger of absconding (see Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 68, 24 May 2007, and Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.12.2002 - 53236/99

  WAITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03

  AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36220/02

  BARABANSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 24460/04

  SHANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 17060/03

  ZELILOF v. GREECE
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 77018/01

  POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  [ENG]

  In the circumstances of the case, the Court is not prepared to draw adverse inferences from the delay in the applicant's raising the matter before the national authorities (see, for comparison, Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, § 66, 10 January 2012, and A.A. v. Russia, no. 49097/08, § 88, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR - 60882/12 (anhängig)

  AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

  Did the courts respect the "presumption in favour of release" (in particular, insofar as the distribution of the burden of proof was concerned (see Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 108, 12 June 2008, and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 154, 9 October 2008)? Did the courts assess specific factual circumstances demonstrating the existence of the risks allegedly posed by the applicants (see, for example, Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 107, 8 February 2005; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, §§ 57-59, 24 May 2007; Gusev v. Russia, no. 67542/01, §§ 80-82, 15 May 2008; Sizov v. Russia, no. 33123/08, § 53, 15 March 2011; and Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, §§ 127-133, 11 October 2011)? Did the courts examine relevant evidence in order to establish the existence of those facts (see, for example, Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 125-27, 12 March 2009, and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 162, 24 April 2012)? Did the courts consider the possibility of applying less intrusive preventive measures to the applicants, such as bail, house arrest, electronic surveillance, personal sureties and so on (see, for example, Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 69-71, 24 May 2007; Tsarkov v. Russia, no. 16854/03, § 70, 16 July 2009; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 92, 28 June 2011; and Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, § 71, 20 September 2011; see also the ruling of 22 October 2009 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)? Did the courts have due regard to the changing situation of the defendants and the evolving needs of the proper conduct of the proceedings when extending the detention (see, for example, Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 191, 22 December 2008; Sizov v. Russia, cited above; and Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, § 87, 10 January 2012)?.
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 22152/05

  [ENG]

  The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 203, 31 May 2011, and Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, §§ 94-95, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  - Did the courts have due regard to the changing situation of the defendants and the evolving needs of the proper conduct of the proceedings when extending the detention (see, for example, Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 191, 22 December 2008; Sizov v. Russia, cited above; and Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, § 87, 10 January 2012)?.
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 16208/05

  [ENG]

  In such circumstances the Court finds that the date of 3 November 2006 should be considered as the date of the introduction of the application (see, for example, Sokurenko v. Russia, no. 33619/04, § 100, 10 January 2012).