Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALKHASYAN CONTRE L'ARMÉNIE ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALKHASYAN AGAINST ARMENIA AND 6 OTHER CASES

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 6729/07, 24173/06, 44837/08, 44286/12, 50520/08, 12895/06, 629/11

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINASYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Minasyan v. Armenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 44837/08
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Court notes that it has already examined an identical complaint in other cases against Armenia, in which it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant's detention was not based on a court decision and was therefore unlawful within the meaning of that provision (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 56-64, 20 December 2011; Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 79-82, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, § 60-63, 26 June 2012; and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, § 74-77, 2 October 2012).

  The Court notes that it has already examined similar complaints in cases against Armenia, in which it held that a denial of judicial review of the applicant's detention on the sole ground that the criminal case was no longer considered to be in its pre-trial stage was an unjustified restriction of his right to take proceedings under Article 5 § 4 (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 78-81, 20 December 2011 and Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, §§ 125-127, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The expressions "lawful" and "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, and Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  Where such grounds are found to have been "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 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 5 § 4 enshrines, as does Article 6 § 1, the right of access to a court, which can only be subject to reasonable limitations that do not impair its very essence (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 82-90, ECHR 2003-I (extracts); and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 70, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 22491/08

  SEFILYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 44837/08

  The Court notes that it has already examined an identical complaint in other cases against Armenia, in which it concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant's detention was not based on a court decision and was therefore unlawful within the meaning of that provision (see Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 44068/07, §§ 56-64, 20 December 2011; Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 79-82, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 6729/07, § 60-63, 26 June 2012; and Sefilyan v. Armenia, no. 22491/08, § 74-77, 2 October 2012).

• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

  NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dans le premier arrêt, non encore définitif (Minasyan c. Arménie, no 44837/08, § 64, 8 avril 2014), la même chambre s'est prononcée ainsi: « s'il est vrai que, tout au long de l'incarcération du requérant, les juridictions internes ont suivi le même raisonnement en ce qui concerne ce motif de détention et que, au fil du temps, celui-ci a inévitablement perdu de sa pertinence, la Cour ne peut conclure sur ce seul fondement que les autorités n'avaient pas de motif raisonnable de maintenir l'intéressé en détention pour l'empêcher de fuir (comparer avec Panchenko c. Russie, no 45100/98, § 106, 8 février 2005).