Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, and to the fact that no violation was found in respect of part of the application, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1, 500 covering costs under all heads (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  Referring to the Court's previous judgments, the applicant argued that the provisions of Russian law governing detention of persons with a view to extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 72, 11 October 2007; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 86, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  It is therefore immaterial, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (f), whether the underlying decision to expel can be justified under national or Convention law (see, among others, Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 78, 6 December 2007).

• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 38124/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  For a detailed summary of the remaining aspects of the relevant domestic law and practice on detention and extradition see Dzhurayev v. Russi°, no. 38124/07, §§ 32-46, 17 December 2009.
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  Although the number of days taken to conduct the relevant proceedings is obviously an important aspect of the overall speed of review, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed (see Merie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 664/05, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 15303/09

  Auslieferungshaft, Auslieferung, Russische Föderation, Usbekistan, erniedrigende …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  Referring to the Court's previous judgments, the applicant argued that the provisions of Russian law governing detention of persons with a view to extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 72, 11 October 2007; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 86, 4 November 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  [ENG]

  The fact that part of the period in question fell on public holidays cannot in itself serve as a valid reason for a delay such as in the present case (see Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, § 61, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 5515/09

  [ENG]

  Without passing any judgment as to whether the applicant's release could in the particular context be accepted as a relevant criterion, the Court finds that the sum awarded as just satisfaction was not sufficient to provide the applicant with appropriate redress in the circumstances (for comparison see, for example, Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003; Rapacciuolo v. Italy, no. 76024/01, 19 May 2005; Vejmola v. the Czech Republic, no. 57246/00, 25 October 2005; and - more recently - Rahmani and Dineva v. Bulgaria, no. 20116/08, 10 May 2012; Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, 5 June 2012; Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, 12 June 2012; and Alikhonov v. Russia, no. 35692/11, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 1497/10

  [ENG]

  It was for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (R.M.D. v. Switzerland, 26 September 1997, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 78, ECHR 2003-IV; and Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, § 61, 12 June 2012).

• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  SIDIKOVY v. RUSSIA

  The Government also noted that the effectiveness of the remedy was further corroborated by the fact that in the cases of Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, § 27, 5 June 2012; Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, § 19, 5 June 2012; and Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, §§ 26-27, 12 June 2012, the Russian court had annuled extradition orders issued by the Prosecutor's Office.
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 64528/09

  SCHVARC v. SLOVAKIA

  With reference to its case-law both at the relevant time and subsequently (for comparison see, for example, Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003; Rapacciuolo v. Italy, no. 76024/01, 19 May 2005; Vejmola v. the Czech Republic, no. 57246/00, §§ 47 and 56, 25 October 2005; and - more recently - Gál v. Slovakia, no. 45426/06, 30 November 2010; Karlin v. Slovakia, no. 41238/05, 28 June 2011; Rahmani and Dineva v. Bulgaria, no. 20116/08, 10 May 2012; Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, 5 June 2012; Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, 12 June 2012; and Alikhonov v. Russia, no. 35692/11, 31 July 2012), the Court considers that the sum awarded as just satisfaction by the Constitutional Court was not sufficient to provide the applicant with appropriate redress in the circumstances.
• EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 63800/10

  ALOJZ v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court notes that the compensation awarded in the present case by the Constitutional Court is somewhat lower than the Court's own awards in similar cases (for comparison see, for example, Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003; Rapacciuolo v. Italy, no. 76024/01, 19 May 2005; Vejmola v. the Czech Republic, no. 57246/00, §§ 47 and 56, 25 October 2005; and - more recently - Gál v. Slovakia, no. 45426/06, 30 November 2010; Karlin v. Slovakia, no. 41238/05, 28 June 2011; Rahmani and Dineva v. Bulgaria, no. 20116/08, 10 May 2012; Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, 5 June 2012; Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, 12 June 2012; and Alikhonov v. Russia, no. 35692/11, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 43009/10

  AKHADOV v. SLOVAKIA

  In addition, it should be taken into account that the detention order challenged by the applicant had been issued by the Foreigners Police Department, that is to say a non-judicial body (see Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, § 58, 12 June 2012).