Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 5-3 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McKAY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 543/03
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2007, 3699

Wird zitiert von ... (165)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  As regards the scope of that review, the formulation which has been at the basis of the Court's long-established case-law dates back to the early case of Schiesser v. Switzerland (4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34):.

  The procedural requirement places the "officer" under the obligation of hearing himself the individual brought before him (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp [v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979], p. 24, § 60, [Series A no. 33]); the substantive requirement imposes on him the obligations of reviewing the circumstances militating for or against detention, of deciding, by reference to legal criteria, whether there are reasons to justify detention and of ordering release if there are no such reasons (... Ireland v. the United Kingdom, [18 January 1978], p. 76, § 199, [Series A no. 25])." (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34).

  It has stated that the judicial officer must review "the circumstances militating for or against detention" (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34); "consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III); and, in a recent judgment, "consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 231, ECHR 2003-VI).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 49, 29 April 1999).

  More recently, this has been expressed by saying that "[i]n other words, Article 5 § 3 requires the judicial officer to consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea, cited above, § 231 in fine), that is, "to consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/99, § 47, ECHR 1999-III).

  It has stated that the judicial officer must review "the circumstances militating for or against detention" (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34); "consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III); and, in a recent judgment, "consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 231, ECHR 2003-VI).

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Three strands in particular may be identified as running through the Court's case-law: the exhaustive nature of the exceptions, which must be interpreted strictly (see Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 41, Series A no. 148) and which do not allow for the broad range of justifications under other provisions (Articles 8-11 of the Convention in particular); the repeated emphasis on the lawfulness of the detention, procedurally and substantively, requiring scrupulous adherence to the rule of law (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33); and the importance of the promptness or speediness of the requisite judicial controls (under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4).

  The procedural requirement places the "officer" under the obligation of hearing himself the individual brought before him (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp [v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979], p. 24, § 60, [Series A no. 33]); the substantive requirement imposes on him the obligations of reviewing the circumstances militating for or against detention, of deciding, by reference to legal criteria, whether there are reasons to justify detention and of ordering release if there are no such reasons (... Ireland v. the United Kingdom, [18 January 1978], p. 76, § 199, [Series A no. 25])." (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  The automatic nature of the review is necessary to fulfil the purpose of the paragraph, as a person subjected to ill-treatment might be incapable of lodging an application asking for a judge to review their detention; the same might also be true of other vulnerable categories of arrested person, such as the mentally frail or those ignorant of the language of the judicial officer (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 49, ECHR 1999-III).

  It has stated that the judicial officer must review "the circumstances militating for or against detention" (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34); "consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III); and, in a recent judgment, "consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 231, ECHR 2003-VI).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Continued detention therefore can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).

  Continued detention can therefore be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweigh the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, p. 37, § 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.

  As first held in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, p. 37, § 4, Series A no. 8), the second sentence of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release.

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Accordingly, in order to ensure that the right guaranteed is practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, which first laid down this guiding principle of interpretation of the Convention), the judicial officer who conducts the first automatic review of lawfulness and the existence of a ground for detention must have full jurisdiction, that is, must also have the competence to consider release, with or without conditions.
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Three strands in particular may be identified as running through the Court's case-law: the exhaustive nature of the exceptions, which must be interpreted strictly (see Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 41, Series A no. 148) and which do not allow for the broad range of justifications under other provisions (Articles 8-11 of the Convention in particular); the repeated emphasis on the lawfulness of the detention, procedurally and substantively, requiring scrupulous adherence to the rule of law (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33); and the importance of the promptness or speediness of the requisite judicial controls (under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207, and YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  While promptness has to be assessed according to the special features of each case (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement leaves little flexibility in interpretation; otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and a risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

  Die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs unterscheidet nicht zwischen materiell- und verfahrensrechtlichen Vorschriften des innerstaatlichen Rechts: Beide sind zu beachten, um die Rechtmäßigkeit der Haft zu gewährleisten (siehe Rechtssache McKay ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 543/03, EGMR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3394/03

  Medvedyev u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Dans tous les cas, elle consacre l'obligation d'en observer les normes de fond comme de procédure, mais elle exige de surcroît la conformité de toute privation de liberté au but de l'article 5: protéger l'individu contre l'arbitraire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Bozano c. France, 18 décembre 1986, § 54, série A no 111, Amuur, précité, § 50, Ilascu et autres c. Moldova et Russie [GC], no 8787/99, § 461, CEDH 2004-VII, Assanidze c. Géorgie [GC], no 71503/01, § 171, CEDH 2004-II, McKay c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 543/03, § 30, CEDH 2006-X, et Mooren précité, § 76).

  Le Gouvernement rappelle que la notion de promptitude a été précisée dans l'affaire Brogan (Brogan et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 29 novembre 1988, série A no 145-B), et confirmée récemment dans l'affaire McKay (McKay c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 543/03, § 30, CEDH 2006-X).

 
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court has reiterated in many of its judgments that, in view of both the presumption of innocence and the presumption in favour of liberty, remand in custody must be the exception rather than the norm and only a measure of last resort (see, among many others, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X).
• BVerfG, 29.06.2016 - 1 BvR 1717/15

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen die Versagung von Schmerzensgeld nach …

  Dies gilt für die Missachtung des Richtervorbehalts des Art. 104 Abs. 2 Satz 2 GG auch im Lichte des Art. 5 Abs. 3 EMRK, der sowohl eine zusätzliche verfahrensrechtliche als auch eine materielle Freiheitsgarantie entfaltet (vgl. BVerfGE 10, 302 ; EGMR, Urteil der Großen Kammer vom 3. Oktober 2006 - 543/03 -, NJW 2007, S. 3699 ).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a prerequisite for the lawfulness of the person's continued detention (see, among many other authorities, Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, p. 40, § 4, Series A no. 9, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 44, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  C'est essentiellement sur la base des motifs figurant dans lesdites décisions et des faits non contestés indiqués par l'intéressé dans ses moyens que la Cour doit déterminer s'il y a eu ou non violation de l'article 5 § 3 (voir, par exemple, McKay c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 543/03, § 43, CEDH 2006-X).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In particular, the court held that although there was no doubt that the "competent legal authority" referred to in Article 5 § 1(c) was the authority having competence to deal with a criminal charge (the Magistrate in the United Kingdom), in Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 29, Series A no. 34 and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X the Court had made it clear that the function of "a judge or other officer" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention could be carried out by an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and did not necessarily have to be a person with power to conduct the trial of any eventual criminal charge; that, although there was no express power to order release in the 2000 Act as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, such a power must be implied; that, as paragraph 32 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act provided that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of a person was necessary, it therefore contained a requirement of proportionality; that, there was no provision for conditional release on bail within the statutory scheme, an issue which did not arise in the present case but would need to be addressed in any future case in which it arose; that, although paragraph 33(3) of Schedule 8 enabled a judicial authority to exclude an applicant or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing and paragraph 34 permitted information to be withheld from the applicant or anyone representing him, there were a range of tools available to the court to preserve to the necessary extent an adversarial procedure and equality of arms; and, finally, that there was no authority which supported the applicants" contention that Article 5 required that a detained person should be charged well before the expiry of the twenty-eight day period contemplated in the 2000 Act.

  Convention case-law established that the latter role had to be carried out with due expedition (McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X).

• EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 22692/15

  PATALAKH v. GERMANY

  Diese Vorschrift erfüllt grundsätzlich das Erfordernis, dass nach Einleitung einer automatischen Überprüfung der Rechtmäßigkeit der Haft die Entscheidungen der zuständigen Gerichte in "angemessenen Zeitabständen" ergehen müssen (…siehe Oldham./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36273/97, Rdnr. 30, ECHR 2000-X), und sie gewährt einen wirksamen Schutz des Einzelnen vor willkürlicher oder ungerechtfertigter Freiheitsentziehung, was Hauptzweck des Artikels 5 der Konvention ist (siehe McKay./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 543/03, Rdnr. 30, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  Accordingly, there is no fixed time-frame applicable to each case (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 45, ECHR 2006-X).

  Today it would be of little practical usefulness to try to reconstruct what precisely the Court meant, in the distant sixties, in adding the ornate epithet "special" to the very neutral noun "diligence" and thus coining the notion of "special diligence", and also why this notion was coined in two cases in which the Court found no breach of Article 5 § 3. Attempting to reconstruct the elevation of mere "diligence" or "particular diligence" to the level of "special diligence" in this way would make little practical sense because today the notion of "special diligence" is not only living a life of its own in the judgments of various Chambers of the Court, and has been for decades already, but - what is more important - has been consolidated, case by case, in a number of judgments adopted by the Grand Chamber (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 111, 26 October 2000; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, 6 April 2000; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 45, 3 October, 2006; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 64, 10 March 2009; Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012; and - most recently - Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 87, 5 July 2016).

• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 15172/13

  ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 53413/11

  SIK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11

  NEDIM SENER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.11.2019 - C-653/19

  Spetsializirana prokuratura - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09

  VALERIY SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 22015/10

  VOICU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05

  TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 56425/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 23199/17

  Türkische Journalisten aufgrund von Spekulationen festgenommen
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 15710/07

  ELSNER v. AUSTRIA (No. 1)
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 36493/17

  Festnahme eines Investigativjournalisten in Türkei unzulässig
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 48343/16

  BIGOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  GAFÀ v. MALTA
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  DÖNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 18785/13

  KOUTALIDIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07

  MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06

  KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 26690/11

  FRANÇOIS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 28766/04

  ARDELEAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 28831/04

  KANZI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 16031/10

  CARACET c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.06.2015 - 36229/11

  ISAYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05

  NOVRUZ ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 11948/08

  ZAYIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 142/04

  BALTEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 1108/02

  KOLEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

  TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 49192/08

  ALLAHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 28074/08

  FILIZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 58223/10

  ÇAKMAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28484/10

  DOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 59474/11

  BALAKIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 15911/08

  GEISTERFER v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

  NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  OVSJANNIKOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 40939/05

  KVASHKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 62736/09

  VASSIS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 24695/09

  GÜDER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 22077/10

  SALIH SALMAN KILIÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

  KHACHATRYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 39633/10

  GACIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 16966/06

  MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 67542/01

  GUSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06

  GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 15067/02

  CZAJKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07

  G. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

  KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 55809/08

  KARALAR c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 42689/09

  MOGIELNICKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06

  DAVIDOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11

  GAL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 1649/12

  RIMSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 46203/11

  ÖZCAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 39368/05

  LUPEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 27090/07

  STAVARACHE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 59860/10

  ÖNER AKTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 1508/08

  SUUT AYDIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04

  SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 65387/09

  SACAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 32602/08

  STOKLOSA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 1127/06

  HAJOL c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06

  POPKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04

  MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 32849/04

  MUCHA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 47043/99

  MEHMET YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 14255/02

  GLADCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 4657/02

  POLAKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 59526/00

  KASZCZYNIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 20200/02

  KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 20204/02

  KWIATEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 67016/01

  DUDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 6334/02

  DOLASINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00

  DEPA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  DOMBEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 53404/18

  MUKHAMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 49020/08

  MYASNIK MALKHASYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 19103/11

  BURLAKOV AND LYSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 67485/17

  R.R. AND A.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17

  ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 83594/17

  GEDZHADZE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 12030/16

  MIRAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 8144/10

  IORDACHE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 61998/15

  M.S. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 38510/06

  STETTNER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 39682/09

  ANNINOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 3620/04

  GHIURAU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 7554/10

  VOLYANYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32197/09

  KARABULUT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  KIPENS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 21388/03

  MIKLOS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 21203/10

  VAN DER VELDEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 18120/10
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06

  STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 28169/08

  VASILKOSKI AND OTHERS v.
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02

  BALCIUNAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  DERMANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 54334/00

  LEXA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 3223/07

  ALEKSEY MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 29723/03

  LAPUSAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 38241/04

  BERGMANN v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  URSU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 1271/05

  GAULT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 16864/02

  ZENON MICHALAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 18390/02

  NOWAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 19177/03

  SCHMALZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 73102/01

  KUC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 29437/02

  LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  GARYCKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 37766/02

  PIOTR KUC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 64284/01

  OLEKSY v. POLAND
• EGMR - 29891/12 (anhängig)

  TERESA MAGEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 724/18

  MUMANZHINOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 82206/17

  AKIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 31709/13

  YAGUBLU v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 5382/10

  TAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 52936/09

  MURESAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 7087/04

  ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 23341/06

  MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30157/03

  MICHALAK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 18837/06

  ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02

  IPEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 42440/06

  MUSUC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 34117/02

  OWCZAR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 62323/00

  NAJDECKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 27556/03

  LACHOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 64973/19

  BIDASHKO AND SAGAYDAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 5623/04

  MEDINTU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

  SHENOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 43701/04

  HENDRIKS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR - 29062/12 (anhängig)

  DUFFY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and one other application
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 42812/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA