Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAIMDZHON YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  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, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  Although the Court is not in a position to analyse the legal quality of the domestic courts' decisions, it considers that, since the remittal of cases for re-examination is frequently ordered as a result of errors, the repetition of such orders within one set of proceedings may disclose a serious deficiency in the judicial system (see, mutatis mutandis, among other authorities, Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  Lastly, the Court notes that the fact that the applicant was held in custody during the first and second trials required particular diligence on the part of the authorities dealing with the case to administer justice expeditiously (see, among other authorities, Korshunov v. Russia, no. 38971/06, § 71, 25 October 2007).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  In the circumstances, the Court cannot accept that the authorities took the necessary care in fixing the appropriate amount of bail when deciding whether or not his continued detention was indispensable (compare Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 40, § 14, Series A no. 8; and M.B. v. Poland, no. 11887/07, § 41, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  In the Court's view, these circumstances had the effect of triggering the application of the six-month rule referred to in Article 35 § 1 in respect of the first two periods of pre-trial detention (see Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, § 83, 18 July 2013, and, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 127-33, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).".
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).".
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  The general principles concerning the lawfulness of pre-trial detention are well established in the Court's case-law and have been summarised as follows (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)):.
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  While the first two periods of pre-trial detention constitute a situation where the applicant continued to be deprived of liberty pending an appeal hearing, the conviction subsequently being quashed on appeal (see, for example, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007), after the second conviction became final he had been serving a prison sentence before the third period of pre-trial detention had started.
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  The Court has, on a number of occasions, already 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 (see, among many other authorities, Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin, cited above).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 5962/03

  MAKARENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 30024/02

  SUTYAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02

  BROVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 63831/00

  CHALKLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 44292/09

  GVINIASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  It finds that those consecutive periods should be regarded as one period (see, for similar reasoning, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 127-133, 22 May 2012; Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, § 60, 12 November 2015; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007).

  The applicable general principles are set out in the cases of Idalov (cited above, § 161) and Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia (no. 40288/06, § 73, 12 November 2015).

  Having regard to the above finding, the Court does not consider it necessary to examine the remaining complaints in respect of the above-mentioned hearings (see, mutatis mutandis, Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, §§ 71 and 72, 12 November 2015; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 195, 16 October 2012; Miminoshvili v. Russia, no. 20197/03, § 106, 28 June 2011; and Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 141, 19 June 2008).

• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  40288/06.
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 25253/08

  RUSEN BAYAR v. TURKEY

  In these circumstances and bearing in mind the absence of any other element which may have required the applicant's personal presence before the appellate court, the Court does not consider that a further oral hearing before the appeal court was required for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (compare Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, § 75, 12 November 2015, and Kolomenskiy v. Russia, no. 27297/07, § 98, 13 December 2016).

• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49106/09

  [ENG]

  It finds that these consecutive periods should be regarded as a whole, given that between them the applicant continued to be deprived of liberty pending an appeal hearing (see Idalov, cited above, §§ 127-33, and Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, § 60, 12 November 2015).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  [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 by relying essentially on the seriousness of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation (see, among many other authorities, Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, § 64, 12 November 2015; Taranenko v. Russia, no. 19554/05, § 51, 15 May 2014; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 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; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; and Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 30777/06

  NAUMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In this respect, the Court observes that is has already dealt with a similar argument by the Government in other cases (see, for instance, Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, §§ 60-62, 12 November 2015).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 57426/14

  DVORETSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The Court recalls that it has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of cases against Russia, where the appeal review of the lawfulness of applicants' detention was carried out in the absence of an applicant and his counsel (see Naimdzhon Yakubov v. Russia, no. 40288/06, §§ 73-76, 12 November 2015; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 99-103, 3 March 2011; Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, §§ 64-68, 17 June 2010).