Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,62474
EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,62474)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.06.2010 - 44511/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,62474)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Juni 2010 - 44511/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,62474)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62474) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (56)Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04
    The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

    Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04
    The Court reiterates that, in determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, among other authorities, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, Series A no. 7, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04
    This is particularly true in the Russian legal system where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of the issue whether the evidence that has been obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, 8 November 2005).
  • EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

    SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04
    Accordingly, the applicant's detention from 22 April 2004, the date of his original first-instance conviction, to 22 June 2005, the date on which that conviction was quashed by way of supervisory review and his case remitted for a new trial, cannot be taken into account for the purposes of Article 5 § 3. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration comprised two terms, the first lasting from 2 January 2002 to 22 April 2004 and the second from 22 June 2005 to 21 August 2006, and amounted in total to over three years and five and a half months (see, among other authorities, Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04
    Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Panchenko, cited above § 102; Ilijkov, cited above, § 81; and Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

    DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 44511/04
    Indeed, the provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 183; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 47, 2 March 2006).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

    Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

    It has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

    Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

    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 had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

    [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 relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Khudoyorov, cited above; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht