Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOROSHCHENYA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (26)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  The Court further reiterates that the fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the courts dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 132, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III).

  At that stage of the proceedings those reasons justified keeping the applicant in custody (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 176, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  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, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  The Court observes that there is no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 102, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  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 reoffending or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207, and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  In the Court's view, this approach is incompatible in itself with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 28957/02

  PSHEVECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  However, the Court does not need to determine the applicant's residence situation, as the mere lack of a fixed abode does not give rise to a danger of absconding or reoffending (see Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, § 68, 24 May 2007).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  The Court further emphasises that when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities have an obligation under Article 5 § 3 to consider alternative measures to ensure his or her appearance at the trial (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 10675/02

  KUSMIEREK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03

  The Court reiterates that the delay occasioned by their failure to attend at least seven hearings and the City Court's failure to discipline them is attributable to the State (see Kusmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 65, 21 September 2004, and Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 34, 8 March 2007).
• EGMR, 04.03.2004 - 72159/01
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 4459/03

  SIDORENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  MISHKETKUL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 3194/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

  LABZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02

  GULIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17679/03

  BUZHINAYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  As long as the applicant stays within the same type of detention facility, and provided the material conditions have remained substantially the same, it matters not that he or she was transferred between cells or wings within the same remand prison (see Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, §§ 108-109, 16 December 2010, and Nazarov v. Russia, no. 13591/05, § 78, 26 November 2009), from one remand prison to another within the same region (see Romokhov v. Russia, no. 4532/04, § 74, 16 December 2010; Mukhutdinov v. Russia, no. 13173/02, § 77, 10 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, § 62, 22 April 2010; and Benediktov, cited above, § 31) or even to a remand prison in a different region (see Aleksandr Matveyev v. Russia, no. 14797/02, § 67, 8 July 2010, and Buzhinayev v. Russia, no. 17679/03, § 23, 15 October 2009).

  Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010 (IZ-47/1, IZ-47/4, St Petersburg, 1999-2004).

• 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, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

  FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As long as the applicant stays within the same type of detention facility and provided the material conditions have remained substantially the same, it matters not that he or she was transferred between cells or wings within the same remand prison (see Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 2), no. 14248/05, §§ 108-109, 16 December 2010, and Nazarov v. Russia, no. 13591/05, § 78, 26 November 2009), from one remand prison to another within the same region (see Romokhov v. Russia, no. 4532/04, § 74, 16 December 2010; Mukhutdinov v. Russia, no. 13173/02, § 77, 10 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, § 62, 22 April 2010; and Benediktov, cited above, § 31, 10 May 2007) or even to a remand prison in a different region (see Aleksandr Matveyev v. Russia, no. 14797/02, § 67, 8 July 2010, and Buzhinayev v. Russia, no. 17679/03, § 23, 15 October 2009).

• 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, 12.11.2015 - 32036/10

  BUTKO v. RUSSIA

  The way the showering procedure was organised did not afford detainees even elementary privacy, since they were taken to shower halls as a group, and the number of functioning shower heads was occasionally too small to accommodate all of them (see Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, § 71, 22 April 2010; Shilbergs, cited above, § 97; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, § 99; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 44, 26 June 2008; Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 94, 15 November 2007; and Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 79, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06

  A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  38711/03.
• 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, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

  VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA

  52/1 and 77/3 can be regarded as a continuous situation (see, for instance, Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 30, 7 June 2007; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, § 36, 26 June 2008; and, more recently, Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, § 62, 22 April 2010; and, by contrast, Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, §§ 82-84, 29 January 2009).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [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 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, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  [ENG]

  It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, § 87, 22 April 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 20326/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 30268/03

  DMITRIY SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 29450/20

  HUREZANU c. ROUMANIE