Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,15904
EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,15904)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.01.2012 - 33619/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,15904)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Januar 2012 - 33619/04 (https://dejure.org/2012,15904)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15904) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

    REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
    Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII).
  • EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

    BLECIC v. CROATIA

    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, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06

    SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
    In some cases the Court stated that where detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, as a general rule, a detainee should have a right to participate in a hearing where his detention is discussed (see Lebedev, cited above, § 113, and Sorokin v. Russia, no. 7739/06, § 80, 30 July 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, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

    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, 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, 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 OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91 and 92, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
    While not every investigation should necessarily come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
    While not every investigation should necessarily come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

    McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36220/02

    BARABANSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot;

  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 16208/05

    ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

    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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht