Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLETMENTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Pletmentsev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 14810/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  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.
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  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.
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  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 Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  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 Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  In this connection it reiterates that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Stasaitis v. Lithuania, cited above, § 67), especially when coupled with the failure of the court to indicate a time-limit for the detention, directly or by reference to the applicable provisions of domestic law (see, among other authorities, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 71, 2 March 2006; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 111-15, 25 June 2009; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 160, 31 May 2011; and Stepanov v. Russia, no. 33872/05, §§ 73-77, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  In this connection it reiterates that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Stasaitis v. Lithuania, cited above, § 67), especially when coupled with the failure of the court to indicate a time-limit for the detention, directly or by reference to the applicable provisions of domestic law (see, among other authorities, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 71, 2 March 2006; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 111-15, 25 June 2009; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 160, 31 May 2011; and Stepanov v. Russia, no. 33872/05, §§ 73-77, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the decision of 20 November 2003 must have left the applicant in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds and time-limits for his deprivation of liberty until the Town Court re-examined the issue on 23 December 2003, that is, more than a month later (see Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, § 44, 9 July 2009).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  In this regard the Court notes that the absence of time-limits in a detention order issued under Article 255 of the CCrP has previously been a crucial element for its finding that such order was tainted with arbitrariness because it considered that the six-month maximum period of detention set out in that provision was far too long to be applied implicitly on the sole ground that a criminal case had been lodged with a court competent to examine it (see Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, § 55, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  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 Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, §§ 87-88, 10 January 2012; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 120, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 33872/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 4157/04

  In this connection it reiterates that the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions authorising detention for a prolonged period of time is incompatible with the principle of protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (see Stasaitis v. Lithuania, cited above, § 67), especially when coupled with the failure of the court to indicate a time-limit for the detention, directly or by reference to the applicable provisions of domestic law (see, among other authorities, Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 71, 2 March 2006; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 91, 1 March 2007; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, §§ 111-15, 25 June 2009; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 160, 31 May 2011; and Stepanov v. Russia, no. 33872/05, §§ 73-77, 25 September 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 21153/02

  BEDNOV ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA RUSSIE

  4157/04.
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 11214/07

  BOYCHUK v. RUSSIA

  However, the amount of compensation appears to be lower than what the Court generally awards in cases featuring complaints about unlawful detention (see, for recent examples, Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, 27 June 2013; Sergey Chebotarev v. Russia, no. 61510/09, 7 May 2014; Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014; Eduard Shabalin v. Russia, no. 1937/05, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 25697/13

  ZAUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, the amount of compensation appears to be substantially lower than what the Court generally awards in cases featuring complaints about unlawful detention (see, for recent examples, Pletmentsev v. Russia, no. 4157/04, 27 June 2013; Sergey Chebotarev v. Russia, no. 61510/09, 7 May 2014; Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 2), no. 27455/06, 13 March 2014; Eduard Shabalin v. Russia, no. 1937/05, 16 October 2014).