Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 13+6, Art. 13+8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13+6 Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13+8 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 46082/99
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 46082/99
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 for civil or criminal litigation (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, p. 42, § 78 in fine; the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22; Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 66, 4 July 2000), it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question.

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The scope of the Contracting States' obligations under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant's complaint; however, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  However, as regards the necessity of the interference, the Government have not submitted any reasons which could justify this control of correspondence with the Court, the confidentiality of which must be respected (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 82-84, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 38565/97

  COTLET c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  In addition, the Court notes that the applicant's position was particularly vulnerable as he had been detained and was dependent in his correspondence with the Court - and with the rest of the outside world - on the prison administration (see Cotleţ v. Romania, no. 38565/97, § 71, 3 June 2003).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court first recalls 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, the (see Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9, 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, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  The Court first recalls 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, the (see Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99

  Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 for civil or criminal litigation (see the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, p. 42, § 78 in fine; the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22; Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 66, 4 July 2000), it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question.
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 8304/78
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 22053/02

  BELOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that while its jurisdiction ratione temporis covers only the period after the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Russia, the Court will take into account the state of proceedings existing on the material date (see, among other authorities, Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 58, 30 November 2004).
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA

  The Court first 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita, cited above, §§ 145 and 147).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court first 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita, cited above, §§ 145 and 147).

• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 26746/05

  [ENG]

  It is also noted that the applicant received all the Court's letters (see, by contrast, Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 121, 30 November 2004) and that the Court received some of the applicant's correspondence during the relevant period.
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  [ENG]

  The Court has examined this complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 126, ECHR 2001-VIII; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 108, 30 November 2004; and Anatoliy Tarasov v. Russia, no. 3950/02, § 50, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE

  En particulier, il y a lieu de présumer qu'un détenu, enfermé dans un espace clos, ayant peu de contacts avec ses proches ou avec le monde extérieur et constamment soumis à l'autorité de l'administration de la prison, présente un degré de vulnérabilité certain (voir Cotlet c. Roumanie, no 38565/97, § 71, 3 juin 2003, et Klyakhin c. Russie, no 46082/99, § 122, 30 novembre 2004).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

  MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE

  En particulier, il y a lieu de présumer qu'un détenu, enfermé dans un espace clos, ayant peu de contacts avec ses proches ou avec le monde extérieur et constamment soumis à l'autorité de l'administration de la prison, présente un degré de vulnérabilité certain (voir Cotlet c. Roumanie, no 38565/97, § 71, 3 juin 2003, et Klyakhin c. Russie, no 46082/99, § 122, 30 novembre 2004).
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30271/03

  IVAN KUZMIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court also refers to its earlier finding made in the context of a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, that in Russia there were no domestic remedies whereby an applicant could enforce his or her right to a "hearing within a reasonable time" (see Sidorenko v. Russia, no. 4459/03, § 39, 8 March 2007, and Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, §§ 101-102, 30 November 2004).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court firstly 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04

  [ENG]

  The Court firstly 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 Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 91, 8 February 2005; Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 57, 30 November 2004; and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145 and 147, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 28617/03

  BELASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 63748/13

  PSHIBIYEV ET BEROV c. RUSSIE et 4 autres affaires
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 33726/03

  TSONYO TSONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 66941/01

  ZAGORODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 11769/04

  KRYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 47672/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 923/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 40022/05

  KOBELYAN v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 2450/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 65735/01

  YAKURIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  STITIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.02.2010 - 24827/06

  KUPRINY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 30400/02

  BAKA c. ROUMANIE