Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Fedorenko v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial required by Article 6 § 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308, and Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005).

  Although at that time no formal charges were brought against him, his arrest and detention formed part of the investigation and made him a person "charged with a criminal offence" within the meaning of Article 6 § 2. The impugned statement by the District Court had a direct link with that investigation, and Article 6 § 2 therefore applies in this case (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 37, Series A no. 308).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 104-6, ECHR 2000-IX, and Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 219-21).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial required by Article 6 § 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308, and Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  As regards the courts" reliance on the seriousness of charges as the decisive element, the Court has repeatedly held that this reason cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see, among other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003; and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 81, 26 July 2001).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.10.2016 - C-439/16

  Milev - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - …

  27 - Zu Art. 6 Abs. 2 EMRK vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 27. Februar 2007, Nes?¥ák/Slowakei, CE:ECHR:2007:0227JUD006555901, §§ 88 bis 91, 20. November 2011, Fedorenko/Russland, CE:ECHR:2011:0920JUD003960205, §§ 88 bis 93, sowie 10. November 2015, Slavov u. a./Bulgarien, CE:ECHR:2015:1110JUD005850010, § 130.
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 45767/09

  UTVENKO ET BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  Le droit interne pertinent en l'espèce concernant le placement et le maintien en détention provisoire d'une personne accusée d'une infraction pénale est résumé dans l'arrêt Fedorenko c. Russie (no 39602/05, §§ 29-37, 20 septembre 2011).
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 40834/11

  KALINICHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Certaines dispositions du droit interne concernant le placement et le maintien en détention provisoire d'une personne accusée d'une infraction pénale sont résumées dans les arrêts Fedorenko c. Russie (no 39602/05, §§ 29-37, 20 septembre 2011) et Pyatkov c. Russie (no 61767/08, §§ 48-67, 13 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  VARDAN MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has found a violation of Article 6 § 2 in a number of cases where the domestic courts, in pre-trial detention decisions, stated in an unqualified manner that the applicant had committed an offence (see, for example, Matija?.evic, cited above, §§ 47-51; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, §§ 71-73, 6 February 2007; Ne?.?¥ák v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 89-91, 27 February 2007; Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, §§ 89-93, 20 September 2011; Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, §§ 202-204, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Mugo?.a v. Montenegro, no. 76522/12, §§ 68 and 69, 21 June 2016; and Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, §§ 138-147, 17 September 2020).