Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDOSOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. ... 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  It observes that the applicant was convicted on 17 July 2001 and after that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).
• EKMR, 31.03.1993 - 17669/91

  VAN LAAK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that in certain circumstances a reduction in sentence can have the effect of rendering an applicant "no longer a victim" (see, for example, Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999, and Van Laak v. the Netherlands, no.17669/91, Commission decision of 31 March 1993, DR 74, p. 156).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 25130/94

  LIE AND BERNTSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that in certain circumstances a reduction in sentence can have the effect of rendering an applicant "no longer a victim" (see, for example, Lie and Berntsen v. Norway (dec.), no. 25130/94, 16 December 1999, and Van Laak v. the Netherlands, no.17669/91, Commission decision of 31 March 1993, DR 74, p. 156).
• EGMR, 30.08.2005 - 38871/02

  WONG c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (cf. Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996, and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005 and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
• EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 25040/94

  ENDERS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 42237/02

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (cf. Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996, and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005 and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2007, Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996, and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005, and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
• EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08

  [ENG]

  It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of the alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; and Brinzevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 6822/04, 11 December 2007; and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005, and Wong v. Luxemburg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005) and that this complaint is to be rejected, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35 §§ 3 and 4.
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 36911/02

  MISHKETKUL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It follows that the first two applicants did not make use of the avenues available to them under domestic law (see Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2006) and that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  It observes that the applicant was convicted on 23 January 2002 and that after that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 3040/03

  BABUNIDZE v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, having regard to the content of the Supreme Court's judgment of 14 October 2003 and the subsequent re-examination of the applicant's case during which he had been afforded an effective opportunity to attend hearings and present his arguments, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention which occurred as a result of the authorities" failure to summons the applicant to the hearing of 19 March 2002 (see Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Hans-Joachim Enders v. Germany, no. 25040/94, Commission decision of 12 April 1996; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and, mutatis mutandis, Hajiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 5548/03, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 3896/04

  RYABOV v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 1 March 2006 and the appeal judgment of 19 July 2006 which indicated that a new trial should be held, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (compare Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Wong v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005).
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 16284/18

  PARFENOV AND BARABASH v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that it applies a similar approach to cases concerning Article 5 § 3 of the Convention by calculating the six-month time-limit for applicants to complain about the unreasonably long detention on remand from the date of the trial judgment, irrespective of the fact if an appeal may be pending (see Novinskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 11982/02, § 107, 6 December 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02.25 January 2007; Kositsyn v. Russia (dec.), no. 69535/01, 19 October 2006; Mironov v. Russia (dec.), no. 22625/02, 5 October 2006; Daktaras v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 42095/98, 11 January 2000).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 42052/04

  [ENG]

  It observes that the applicant was convicted on 19 August 2003 and that after that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 25 January 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 37041/03

  DAVIDCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, having regard to the contents of the Presidium's decision of 26 April 2006, the Court finds that the national authorities have acknowledged, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (compare Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007; Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Wong v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 38871/02, 30 August 2005).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 26704/02

  LYAKHEVICH v. RUSSIA

  Following the Supreme Court's ruling of 31 January 2002, the applicant was afforded redress in the form of a re-trial (see, for similar approach, Fedosov v. Russia (dec.), no. 42237/02, 5 January 2007; Nikishina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45665/99, 12 September 2000; and Babunidze v. Russia (dec.), no. 3040/03, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 6822/04

  BRINZEVICH v. RUSSIA