Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17

  As regards the applicant's remaining complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to the facts of the case and the findings under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17

  The question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, mutatis mutandis, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006-X) and that the arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention.
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17

  The question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, mutatis mutandis, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006-X) and that the arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention.
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17

  For relevant provisions of the domestic law and practice, see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 23-25, 17 July 2014.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 38042/18

  A.K. v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Accordingly, in the light of these considerations and given the recurrent findings of violations of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention in respect of foreigners or stateless persons detained virtually indefinitely in Russia with a view to their administrative expulsion (see R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-5, 8 October 2019; L.M. and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 145-52; Mumanzhinova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 724/18 and eight others, §§ 17-26, 8 October 2019; Ismailov v. Russia [Committee], no. 45852/17, §§ 22-3, 24 September 2019; and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 29957/14 and eight others, §§ 62-6, 12 December 2017), the Court finds that the length of the detention of A.K. and A.Y. exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose pursued and that their detention became a punitive rather than a preventive measure.