Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SILIN v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.09.2006 - 3947/03
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulas paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 100-03, 1 March 2007; Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, §§ 40-46, 14 December 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 180-89, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.

  The fact that the applicant was held in custody required particular diligence on the part of the authorities (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 133, 8 February 2005, and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 132).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; Neumeister, cited above, p. 41, § 18; and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  Similarly, the danger of flight necessarily decreases as the time spent in detention passes (see Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 39, § 10).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; Neumeister, cited above, p. 41, § 18; and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  The Court reiterates that in criminal matters the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; Neumeister, cited above, p. 41, § 18; and Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in several Russian cases where the domestic courts prolonged an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulas paraphrasing the reasons for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied in the applicant's case or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 100-03, 1 March 2007; Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, §§ 40-46, 14 December 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 180-89, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  The Court must then establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, § 84).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02

  SHCHEGLYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  SIDIKOVY v. RUSSIA

  The Government referred to cases of Silin v. Russia, no. 3947/03, 24 April 2008, and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008.
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  [ENG]

  With reference to the cases of Silin v. Russia (no. 3947/03, 24 April 2008) and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia (no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008), the Government submitted that, should the Court establish that there had been a breach of the applicant's Convention rights, the finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction.