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 ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• 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, 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, 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, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10

  The Court may intervene only in situations where the rights and liberties guaranteed under the Convention have been infringed (see Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 59, ECHR 2007-II (extracts)).
• 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, 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, 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, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  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, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  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, 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

• 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, 12.10.2023 - 47320/15

  BEZOBRAZOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court is prepared to accept that the above circumstances could reasonably constitute sufficient grounds justifying the applicant's pre-trial detention for less than four months (see Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, §§ 72-73, 20 September 2012; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38, 43-45, 18 December 2012; and Nenad Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 38415/13, §§ 59, 65-69, 24 November 2015).

 
• 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, 12.12.2019 - 77755/16

  LUZHKOV 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, 16.06.2022 - 33595/18

  PARSHIN 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, 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, 07.04.2022 - 16070/12

  CHERTENKOVA 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, 12.04.2018 - 33641/17

  SUKHYNIN v. UKRAINE

  Consequently, the Court finds that the period of the applicant's detention of one year and almost nine months does not appear, in the circumstances, to be excessive (see Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, §§ 72-73, 20 September 2012; Sopin v. Russia, no. 57319/10, §§ 38, 43-45, 18 December 2012; and Nenad Kovacevic v. Croatia, no. 38415/13, §§ 59, 65-69, 24 November 2015).