Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (26) Zitiert selbst (27)
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.However, even taking into account the heavy case-load of the Supreme Court, the Court considers that periods of more than forty days on each occasion cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4 (compare Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six, and twenty-nine days).
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01
VLASOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The Court reiterates that in many cases in which detained applicants had at their disposal less than three square metres of personal space, it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 47, 30 July 2009; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 81, 12 June 2008; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 13 on account of the absence of an effective remedy for inhuman and degrading conditions of detention, finding as follows (see Benediktov, cited above, and Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 87, 12 June 2008):.
- EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The applicant also submitted that his detention from 20 to 28 May 2009 had been arbitrary because the City Court's extension order of 14 May 2009 had not set a time-limit for his detention or given any grounds for it (here he referred to the Court's findings in Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 91-92, 1 March 2007).The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The Court has already found that neither an application to an ombudsman, nor a complaint to the prosecutor or to a court constituted an effective remedy because they did not offer a prospect of obtaining either preventive or compensatory redress (see Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, §§ 83-89, 12 March 2009). - EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The requirement of Article 5 § 4 that "the lawfulness of the detention be decided speedily" implies that the review proceedings must be conducted with due expedition (see Medvedev v. Russia, no. 9487/02, § 51, 15 July 2010, and Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 78, 25 October 2007). - EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
As regards the specific problem of the conditions of detention, the Court reiterates that at least two types of relief are possible: an improvement of the relevant material conditions of detention and compensation for the damage or loss sustained on account of such conditions (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007). - EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02
STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
In the light of this finding, the Court does not need to determine whether the refusal of leave to appear in court also entailed a violation of Article 5 § 4 (compare Gubkin, cited above, § 158, and Starokadomskiy v. Russia, no. 42239/02, § 87, 31 July 2008). - EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in Russian cases where the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 38 et seq., 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 172 et seq.; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, §§ 63 et seq., 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, §§ 91 et seq., 8 February 2005; and Smirnova v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
46133/99 and 48183/99, §§ 56 et seq., ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)). - EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
The Court reiterates that in many cases in which detained applicants had at their disposal less than three square metres of personal space, it has already found that the lack of personal space afforded to them was so extreme as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Pitalev v. Russia, no. 34393/03, § 47, 30 July 2009; Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 98, 12 February 2009; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 81, 12 June 2008; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005). - EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98
PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02
Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01
SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05
DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02
KANTYREV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02
BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02
GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02
VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02
DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03
SHERSTOBITOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02
IGNATOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00
ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, 3 March 2011 (IZ-47/1, St Petersburg, 2007-2009). - EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09
GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
The Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of an acute lack of personal space in the cells of facility IZ-47/1 in respect of the time during which the applicant was held there (see Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 43-51, 29 March 2007; Seleznev v. Russia, no. 15591/03, §§ 38-48, 26 June 2008; Lutokhin v. Russia, no. 12008/03, §§ 53-59, 8 April 2010; Petrenko v. Russia, no. 30112/04, §§ 35-41, 20 January 2011; Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 47-53, 3 March 2011; and Popandopulo v. Russia, no. 4512/09, §§ 84-89, 10 May 2011). - EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 4622/09
[ENG]
Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Idalov v. Russia ([GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 154-158, 22 May 2013), regarding the lack of speediness and procedural safeguards in the review of detention matters; Govorushko (cited above, §§ 69-61) and Korshunov (cited above, §§ 60-63), concerning the lack of an enforceable right to compensation for detention which has been found to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 146-151, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), pertaining to the absence a valid domestic decision or other "lawful" basis for detention on remand; and Tsarenko v. Russia (no. 5235/09, §§ 58-63, 3 March 2011), regarding detention in excess of the maximum time-limit established by the Russian law.Art. 5 (1) - unlawful deprivation of liberty, including unrecorded detention and detention without a judicial order and any other legal basis - After 20/07/2009 the applicant's detention exceeded the statutory 18-month time-limit provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, 3/03/2011),.
- EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09
ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES
5235/09. - EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09
[ENG]
The national authorities must put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 68, 3 March 2011). - EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12
RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
Moreover, the Court has previously found that the provisions of Russian law concerning the extension of detention pending the study of the case file by a defendant were not foreseeable in their application, in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 59-63, 3 March 2011, and Pyatkov v. Russia, no. 61767/08, §§ 86-91, 13 November 2012). - EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14
LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA
At the outset the Court observes that the inordinate length of the applicant's detention on remand - more than four years - is a matter of grave concern and requires the domestic authorities to put forward very weighty reasons in order for it to be justified (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 68, 3 March 2011; Trifković v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 121, 6 November 2012; and Dragin, cited above, § 112). - EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13
KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Moreover, the Court has previously found that the provisions of Russian law concerning the extension of detention pending study of case file by a defendant were not foreseeable in their application, in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, §§ 59-63, 3 March 2011; Suslov, cited above, §§ 75-79; and Pyatkov v. Russia, no. 61767/08, §§ 86-91, 13 November 2012). - EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09
[ENG]
In this respect the Court reiterates that it has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in many other cases in which the domestic authorities were using stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts of the case (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 70, 3 March 2011). - EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 25658/19
BANEVI c. BULGARIE
La présomption étant toujours en faveur de la libération, il appartenait aux autorités bulgares d'exposer des arguments particulièrement solides pour maintenir le requérant en détention pendant une si longue période (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et Štvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018). - EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 75068/12
DRAGIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 56111/12
ORBAN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08
NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 40834/11
KALINICHENKO c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12
STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 34044/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 12543/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 2961/09
DUMIKYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20
STAYKOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 48982/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 9070/14
MEMETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 7723/07
SEMENOV AND BACHURINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 25038/14 (anhängig)
LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".