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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule requiring domestic remedies to be exhausted is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  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, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).

 
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that its normal practice has been, where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 40-41, ECHR 2006-..., with further references, and Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, § 112, 10 August 2006).
• 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, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  In order to assess the length of the pre-trial detention of the first two applicants, the Court should therefore make an overall evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, § 6).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  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, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention dans des affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en se fondant essentiellement sur la gravité des charges et sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, CEDH 2006-XII, Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, 2 mars 2006, Michketkoul et autres c. Russie, no 36911/02, 24 mai 2007, Choukhardine c. Russie, no 65734/01, 28 juin 2007, Belov c. Russie, no 22053/02, 3 juillet 2008, Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, 30 juillet 2009, Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, et Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, 27 novembre 2012).

 
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE

  Elle rappelle avoir souvent conclu à la violation de l'article 5 § 3 dans des affaires où les tribunaux internes avaient maintenu le requérant en détention en se fondant essentiellement sur la gravité des charges et en recourant à des formules stéréotypées sans évoquer des faits précis ou sans envisager d'autres mesures préventives (Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, CEDH 2006-XII, Dolgova c. Russie, no 11886/05, 2 mars 2006, Michketkoul et autres c. Russie, no 36911/02, 24 mai 2007, Choukhardine c. Russie, no 65734/01, 28 juin 2007, Belov c. Russie, no 22053/02, 3 juillet 2008, Lamazhyk c. Russie, no 20571/04, 30 juillet 2009, Gultyayeva, précité, Sutyagin c. Russie, no 30024/02, 3 mai 2011, Romanova c. Russie, no 23215/02, 11 octobre 2011, et Dirdizov c. Russie, no 41461/10, 27 novembre 2012).
• 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, 09.04.2009 - 2450/04

  KONDRATYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that a person alleging a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention with respect to the length of his detention complains of a continuing situation which should be considered as a whole and not divided into separate periods in the manner suggested by the Government (see, as recent authorities, Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 102, 3 July 2008; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, § 40, 24 May 2007; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).