Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,57904) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00
- EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
Wird zitiert von ... (36) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62
Stögmüller ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
On the other hand, the Convention institutions have consistently taken the view that Article 6 is, in criminal matters, "designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate" (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40). - EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95
BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03
Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …
Der Gerichtshof hat erkannt, dass eine fehlende Begründung der Entscheidungen der Justizbehörden über eine langfristige Freiheitsentziehung mit dem in Artikel 5 Abs. 1 verankerten Grundsatz des Schutzes vor Willkür unvereinbar ist (siehe Rechtssachen Stasaitis ./. Litauen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47679/99, Randnr. 67, 21. März 2002; Nakhmanovich ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 55669/00, Randnr. 70, 2. März 2006; und Belevitskiy ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 72967/01, Randnr. 91, 1. März 2007). - EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-...; Jecius, cited above, §§ 60-64, and Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-58). - EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 10881/21
SOLDATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
18255/10 and 5 others, §§ 92-156, 9 April 2019, concerning inadequate conditions of transport and lack of an effective remedy in that respect; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012, as regards unreasonably long detention on remand; Idalov, cited above, §§ 154-58, as regards lengthy review of detention matters; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 85-98, 2 March 2006, as regards unreasonable duration of the criminal proceedings; and Gorlov and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to avoid that a person charged should remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48864/99, 3 December 2002). - EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to ensure that a person charged does not remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Taylor v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 48864/99, 3 December 2002). - EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03
KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without judicial authorisation or clear rules governing their situation is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2005-X; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04
YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 26627/05
KARIMBAYEV v. RUSSIA
It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Fursenko v. Russia, no. 26386/02, §§ 77-79, 24 April 2008; Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, §§ 52-59, 25 October 2007; Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, §§ 53-56, 21 June 2007; Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 86-93, 1 March 2007; Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 55-59, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005 X). - EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 25725/02
BORISENKO v. UKRAINE
It further considers that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, particularly, where he is kept in custody (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Yurtayev v. Ukraine, no. 11336/02, § 37, 31 January 2006). - EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 37789/05
PLESHKOV v. UKRAINE
It further notes that an accused in criminal proceedings should be entitled to have his case conducted with special diligence, especially where he is kept in custody (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006). - EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02
SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 17283/02
YELOYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03
VITRUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06
VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 28780/02
FARAFONOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02
SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 35312/02
RYSHKEVICH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR - 46685/20 (anhängig)
KINDYAKOV v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
- EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 47230/11
BOGOSYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12
GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 4903/10
GAYDUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2011 - 61404/08
KOVALENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 27889/03
BOLDYREV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 21231/04
POLISHCHUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 1291/03
SERGEY VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 39188/04
SUPTEL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.04.2008 - 16595/02
GOLOVKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.04.2011 - 13375/06
KARAVANSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 33645/07
KOTYAY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3080/06
ORUDZHEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 32568/05
KOSTAKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 620/05
BALOGA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 27672/03
BURYAGA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 2035/03
TELEGINA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03
YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04
NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,57717) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00
- EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00
It appears that there was no overcrowding problem that may give rise an issue under Article 3 (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00
The court invited to rule on an action for damages caused by unlawful detention examines the matter after the events and therefore does not have jurisdiction to order release if the detention is unlawful, as Article 5 § 4 requires it should (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 February 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00
To the extent that the applicant complained under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints under Article 3, the Court recalls that Article 13 only applies where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52). - EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00
To the extent that the applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about having been refused proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention after 24 July 1999, the Court notes that it will examine the same complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which is a lex specialis in regard to Article 13 of the Convention in this respect (see Kambangu v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 59619/00, 17 June 2004) and the less strict requirements of Article 13 can be considered absorbed by the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 27, § 60).