Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOPIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  Where such grounds are found to have been "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his or her continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  However, the Court reiterates that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify continued detention based on the danger of flight (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7, and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 44, Series A no. 175).

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  In particular, regard must be had to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, etc. (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify his or her continued detention (see, among other authorities, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, §§ 30 and 32, 13 March 2007; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-X; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000; and Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  Having regard to the above, the Court considers that the present case is different from many previous Russian cases where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, §§ 99 et seq., 1 March 2007; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 103 et seq., ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 72 et seq., 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in the domestic courts" decisions and of true statements by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 72, 8 June 2006; Ilijkov, cited above, § 86; and Labita, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 18/03

  VANZHULA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13

  TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that there is nothing in the material submitted to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov, cited above; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012; and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  While the Court doubts whether those circumstances, taken on their own, could have justified the domestic courts" finding that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention, it is satisfied that the totality of those factors combined with other relevant grounds could have provided the domestic courts with an understanding of the pattern of the applicant's behaviour and the persistence of a risk of his absconding (see, for similar reasoning, Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 42, 18 December 2012, and Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, § 93, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  (1) the risk of absconding, based on the severity of punishment that the applicant was facing, his lack of strong social ties, and his connections abroad (see also Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012);.
• EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 13008/13

  KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  By way of comparison, the Court has previously given weight to the Russian authorities" reliance on the gravity of certain offences, such as kidnapping compounded with extortion (see Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 75, 3 April 2014), or multiple aggravated gang kidnapping associated with extortion, robbery and possession and trafficking of firearms (see Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 7 and 98, 5 February 2015), or aggravated fraud by an organised group (see Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 6 and 40, 18 December 2012), or an organised aggravated murder (see Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, §§ 10 and 104, 27 November 2014), or an organised aggravated assault causing injuries of four and one death (see Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, § 103, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  There is nothing in the materials submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the court (see, for similar reasoning, Amirov v. Russia, no. 51857/13, 27 November 2014; Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, 5 February 2013; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; Arutyunyan v. Russia, no. 48977/09, 10 January 2012, and Buldashev v. Russia, no. 46793/06, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 38415/13

  KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

  It therefore follows that the domestic courts appropriately examined the possibility of releasing the applicant and provided convincing and detailed reasons for refusing to release him and to apply an alternative preventive measure (compare Shabani v. Switzerland, no. 29044/06, § 63, 5 November 2009; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 45, 18 December 2012; and, by contrast, Idalov, cited above, § 148; and Orban v. Croatia, no. 56111/12, § 60, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 09.09.2021 - 69168/17

  SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court also finds that the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 1346/12

  OVSJANNIKOV v. ESTONIA

  The Court also observes that while an accused person in detention is entitled to have his case given priority and conducted with particular expedition, this must not stand in the way of the efforts of the authorities to clarify fully the facts in issue (see Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, § 47, 18 December 2012, and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 64, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 02.06.2022 - 48599/17

  DIGAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  There is nothing in the material submitted to the Court to show any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the courts dealing with the matter (see, for similar reasoning, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 96-107, 5 February 2015; Topekhin v. Russia, no. 78774/13, §§ 102-10, 10 May 2016; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38-48, 18 December 2012; and Isayev v. Russia, no. 20756/04, §§ 153-56, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 44885/06

  RYAZANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 44253/08

  TETERIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2019 - 77755/16

  LUZHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 49507/10

  DUDNICHENKO AND WAES v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2017 - 2091/11

  ELKSNIT AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2025 - 37327/21

  OLIYNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 47320/15

  BEZOBRAZOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 34263/16

  GALYCHYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 33595/18

  PARSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 44360/17

  KHUDYAKOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 03.06.2021 - 24504/18

  ZUYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 75390/16

  LATYSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 36740/19

  ROKHLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 9896/11

  BULDASHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 26277/09

  KAZAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2017 - 46427/16

  SADRIYEV AND DEMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 57410/16

  PAVLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 34550/08

  BEZRUKOV AND SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 48073/13

  KOVESHNIKOV v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 16070/12

  CHERTENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 48159/17

  KIREYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 11584/17

  KOZHUKHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 60316/08

  KOCHNEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 57426/14

  DVORETSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 72692/16

  ZARIPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 11493/19

  KOLESNIKOV AND GUZIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 33641/17

  SUKHYNIN v. UKRAINE