Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MISHKETKUL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  Even though other facts that could have warranted the authorities' conclusion about their potential to abscond may have existed, they were not mentioned in the decisions and it is not the Court's task to establish such facts and take the place of the national authorities who ruled on the issue of detention (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 72, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  As regards the domestic authorities' reliance on the gravity of the charges as being the decisive element, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov, cited above, § 81).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  It must be examined with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding and re-offending or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 19, § 43; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).

• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the mere absence of a fixed residence does not give rise to a danger of absconding (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005).
• EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 39615/98

  MOTIERE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  The first two applicants did not seek reimbursement of costs and expenses relating to the proceedings before the domestic courts or the Court and this is not a matter which the Court is required to examine of its own motion (see Motière v. France, no. 39615/98, § 26, 5 December 2000).
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 50358/99

  PEKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  It is hence not necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with due diligence during that period as such a lengthy period cannot in the circumstances be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Pekov v. Bulgaria, no. 50358/99, § 85, 30 March 2006).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that the applicants cannot be required to furnish any proof of the non-pecuniary damage they sustained (see Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  FEDOSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  It follows that the first two applicants did not make use of the avenues available to them under domestic law (see Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2006) and that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 75386/01

  KSENZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  The submissions of the first applicant to the trial court concerning his alleged ill-treatment were designed to demonstrate that his confession had been obtained by force and was therefore inadmissible in evidence (see Ksenzov v. Russia (dec.), no. 75386/01, 27 January 2005).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  From that date until 11 September 2003, when the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 25 December 2001, they were detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a), and therefore that period of their detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see B. v Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, §§ 33-39, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• KAGH, 27.04.2012 - M 12/11

  Änderung der Parkordnung eines Parkhauses; Zustimmung der Mitarbeitervertretung
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  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, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA

  It is hence not necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with due diligence during that period as such a lengthy period cannot in the circumstances be regarded as "reasonable" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 59, 24 May 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]

  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)).

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that, in the instant case, the multiple, consecutive detention periods should be regarded as a whole, and the six-month period should only start to run from the end of the last period of pre-trial custody, that is from 27 April 2002 (see Kemmache v. France (no. 1), judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 218, p. 23, § 44; I.A. v. France, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII, p. 2979, § 98; Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, § 102, 22 December 2004; and Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  36911/02.
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers further that, in the instant case, the multiple, consecutive detention periods should be regarded as a whole, and the six-month period should only start to run from the end of the last period of pre-trial custody, that is from 17 May 2004 (see, as recent authorities, Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007, and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]

  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 others, Khudoyorov, cited above; 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, cited above; 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, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that the applicants cannot be required to furnish any proof of the non-pecuniary damage they sustained (see Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 78, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA

  In order to assess the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court must make an overall evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, as recent authorities, Belov, cited above, § 102; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• 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, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  GOROSHCHENYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 51445/09 (anhängig)

  ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 14824/02

  SYCHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 2450/04

  [ENG]