Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHOUDOBINE c. RUSSIE [Extraits]
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 3 en ce qui concerne l'inadéquation d'un traitement médical dans le cadre d'une détention Non-lieu à examiner les autres griefs au regard de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed Violation of Art. 3 in respect of inadequate medical treatment in the detention facility Not necessary to examine the other complaints under Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 59696/00
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
Wird zitiert von ... (234) Neu Zitiert selbst (16)
- EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
In principle, the Court's case-law does not preclude reliance, at the investigation stage of criminal proceedings and where the nature of the offence so warrants, on evidence obtained as a result of an undercover police operation (see, for instance, Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238).Third, the Court recalls that a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising investigative measures, as well as their proper supervision, should be put into place in order to ensure the authorities" good faith and compliance with the proper law-enforcement objectives (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; also see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 28).
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
Third, the Court recalls that a clear and foreseeable procedure for authorising investigative measures, as well as their proper supervision, should be put into place in order to ensure the authorities" good faith and compliance with the proper law-enforcement objectives (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238; also see, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, §§ 52-56, Series A no. 28). - EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
As to the pecuniary damage allegedly caused, the Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (former Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20; see also Berktay v. Turkey, no. 22493/93, § 215, 1 March 2001).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
In such cases it is up to the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99
Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
Nevertheless, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64
Matznetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); and the risks that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62
Stögmüller ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); and the risks that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
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 the continued detention (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 12; Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52). - EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01
PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
In exceptional cases, where the state of a detainee's health is absolutely incompatible with detention, Article 3 may require the release of such a person under certain conditions (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, CEDH 2001-VI ; Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001) There are three particular elements to be considered in relation to the compatibility of the applicant's health with his stay in detention: (a) the medical condition of the prisoner, (b) the adequacy of the medical assistance and care provided in detention; and (c) the advisability of maintaining the detention measure in view of the state of health of the applicant (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-IX). - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); and the risks that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90
HURTADO c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98
PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00
ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 54648/09
Unzulässige Tatprovokation (Anstiftung; verbleibende Opferstellung im Sinne der …
Das öffentliche Interesse an der Bekämpfung von Straftaten kann nicht den Gebrauch von Beweismitteln rechtfertigen, die als Ergebnis polizeilicher Provokation gewonnen wurden, da der Beschuldigte so von Beginn an der Gefahr ausgesetzt würde, dass ihm definitiv kein faires Verfahren zuteil wird (…siehe u. a. Teixeira de Castro, a. a. O., Rdnrn. 35-36; Edwards und Lewis./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 39647/98 und 40461/98, Rdnrn. 46 und 48, ECHR 2004-X;… Vanyan./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53203/99, Rdnr. 46, 15. Dezember 2005; Khudobin./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 59696/00, Rdnr. 133, ECHR 2006-XII (Auszüge); Ramanauskas, a. a. O., Rdnr. 54; und Bannikova./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 18757/06, Rdnr. 34, 4. - EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15
Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …
Der Gerichtshof hat in diesem Zusammenhang insbesondere festgestellt, dass die innerstaatlichen Behörden keinen Grund hatten, eine Person der Beteiligung am Rauschgifthandel zu verdächtigen, wenn diese Person nicht vorbestraft war, kein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen sie eingeleitet worden war und nichts darauf hindeutete, dass sie einer Beteiligung am Rauschgifthandel schon zugeneigt war, bevor sie von den Polizeibeamten kontaktiert wurde (…siehe Teixeira de Castro, a.a.O., Rdnr. 38; bestätigt in Edwards und Lewis./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerden Nr. 39647/98 und 40461/98, Rdnrn. 46 und 48, ECHR 2004-X; Khudobin./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 59696/00, Rdnr. 129, ECHR 2006-XII (auszugsweise);… Ramanauskas, a.a.O., Rdnr. 56;… und Bannikova, Rdnr. 39;… siehe auch Pyrgiotakis, a.a.O., Rdnr. 21). - EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 10211/12
Sicherungsverwahrung für deutschen Sexualmörder gebilligt
Wenn ein Staat jedoch eine zweite Instanz vorsieht, muss er Personen, denen die Freiheit entzogen ist, im Rechtsmittelverfahren grundsätzlich dieselben Garantien zugestehen wie in der ersten Instanz (siehe Navarra ./. Frankreich, 23. November 1993, Rdnr. 28, Serie A Band 273-B, Khudobin ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 59696/00, Rdnr. 124, ECHR 2006-XII (Auszüge), und S.T.S. ./. Niederlande, a.a.O., Rdnr. 43), auch im Hinblick auf die Zügigkeit der Überprüfung einer durch ein unteres Gericht angeordneten Freiheitsentziehung in der Rechtsmittelinstanz (…siehe Piotr Baranowski./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39742/05, Rdnr. 63, 2. Oktober 2007).
- EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 10211/12
Sexualstraftäter scheitert mit Beschwerde gegen nachträgliche …
Wenn ein Staat jedoch eine zweite Instanz vorsieht, muss er Personen, denen die Freiheit entzogen ist, im Rechtsmittelverfahren grundsätzlich dieselben Garantien zugestehen wie in der ersten Instanz (…siehe Navarra./. Frankreich, 23. November 1993, Rdnr. 28, Serie A Band 273-B; Khudobin./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 59696/00, Rdnr. 124, ECHR 2006-XII (Auszüge);… und S.T.S../. die Niederlande, a. a. O., Rdnr. 43). - EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 62303/13
Bayerns Justiz verletzte Menschenrechte
Der Gerichtshof hat in diesem Zusammenhang klargestellt, dass es für einen Gefangenen, der an einer schweren Krankheit leidet, unerlässlich ist, von einem auf die fragliche Krankheit spezialisierten Mediziner angemessen auf seinen aktuellen Gesundheitszustand hin untersucht zu werden, damit er die geeignete Behandlung erhalten kann (vgl. Keenan./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27229/95, Rdnrn. 115-116, ECHR 2001-III, hinsichtlich eines psychisch kranken Gefangenen; Khudobin./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 59696/00, Rdnrn. 95-96, ECHR 2006-XII (Auszüge), hinsichtlich eines an mehreren chronischen Erkrankungen, u. a. Hepatitis C und HIV, leidenden Gefangenen; und Testa./. Kroatien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 20877/04, Rdnrn. 51-52, 12. Juli 2007, hinsichtlich einer Gefangenen mit chronischer Hepatitis C). - EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Court noted in particular that "the lack of reasoning was not an accidental or short-term omission but rather a customary way of dealing with applications for release" (see Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 108, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)). - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Il déduit de la partie pertinente en l'espèce de l'abondante jurisprudence de la Cour concernant l'article 2 que le Gouvernement était tenu de fournir une explication au sujet des soins médicaux dispensés à M. Câmpeanu et de la cause de la mort de celui-ci (le CRJ cite, parmi d'autres, Kats et autres c. Ukraine, no 29971/04, § 104, 18 décembre 2008, Dodov c. Bulgarie, no 59548/00, § 81, 17 janvier 2008, Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 147, 22 décembre 2008, Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, § 84, CEDH 2006-XII, et Z.H. c. Hongrie, no 28973/11, §§ 31-32, 8 novembre 2012). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17
Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt
Nevertheless, the Court considers that even in the light of those principles, in normal circumstances a period of sixteen months and three days cannot be regarded as "speedy" (see G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 28-39, 30 November 2000; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 115-24, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Shcherbina, cited above, §§ 62-71). - EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 13237/17
Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt
Nevertheless, the Court considers that even in the light of those principles, in normal circumstances a period of fourteen months and three days cannot be regarded as "speedy" (see G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, §§ 28-39, 30 November 2000; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, §§ 115-24, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Shcherbina, cited above, §§ 62-71). - EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
Julija Tymoschenko
The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept concerning the detainee's state of health and his or her treatment while in detention (see, e.g., Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)), that diagnosis and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik, cited above, §§ 104-106), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban, cited above, § 79; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006). - EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03
IDALOV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 28749/18
Freilassung von Osman Kavala gefordert
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13
KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13
AMIROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
DIRDIZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06
ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03
MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06
BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04
ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 40631/02
TIMERGALIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13
TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 19699/18
AKGÜN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11
MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2009 - 28300/06
SLAWOMIR MUSIAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05
MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20
FENECH v. MALTA
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05
NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06
SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 277/05
S.T.S. c. PAYS-BAS
- EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09
GORBULYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05
DAVITIDZE v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
RESHETNYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05
POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15251/07
OPRIS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08
INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 35581/06
POKHLEBIN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04
MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 44694/13
KOLESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 55546/09
SAMPECH c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 09.09.2010 - 1033/07
XIROS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04
ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07
KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04
ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13
STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 41153/06
DYBEKU v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 31536/07
TCHOKHONELIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07
SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10
GURENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04
SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02
STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 40583/15
IGNATOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14
KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
KOKOSHKINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03
SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06
KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12
KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10
MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09
KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
LIND v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08
SALAKHOV AND ISLYAMOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 5203/09
KONDRATYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 13573/14
TEPRA v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 66850/12
OJCZYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13
SERGEY ANTONOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13
TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 29736/06
DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 7614/09
VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04
YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10
SOPIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05
KOLUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07
MAKHARADZE AND SIKHARULIDZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02
ALI v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04
ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02
POPOV AND VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 37075/14
BRAGADIREANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13
SERGEY DENISOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14
PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 679/13
VERETCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08
JELADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 35887/05
JANIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 14337/04
RADU POP v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 7842/04
VERBINT v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05
VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
TSARENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02
KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04
YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02
VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03
PITALEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03
SILIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06
GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33583/14
DROVORUB v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09
BEKETOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 35517/11
VIRGIL DAN VASILE c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 2613/13
AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 21951/15
GOLUBAR v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 7600/09
PATRASCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10
RODKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 12863/14
MEKRAS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07
G. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 48023/06
VASENIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 42147/05
URAZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 22486/05
ULYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13
KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05
SERGEYEV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 20696/06
YEREMTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 5753/09
NOSKO AND NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9443/10
MARIAN CHIRITA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11
BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 17711/07
SEPIL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 13371/06
KOMAROVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05
SHIKUTA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 12622/04
IVAKHNENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 76317/11
BUBNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 12025/02
TRIFONTSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 21731/02
SHCHEBETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 33123/08
SIZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05
PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 44917/08
PAKHOMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 3194/08
SERGEY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06
ANANYIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03
MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 36551/07
YELIZAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 27968/03
KUZMICKAJA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06
POPKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04
MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 52058/99
GORODNITCHEV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR - 46227/07
SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 48405/07
CHALOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 54449/07
ROGOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 42616/08 (anhängig)
SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 43089/07
CHERKASOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 55519/09 (anhängig)
VALEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 5608/09 (anhängig)
SALIKHOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 10192/09 (anhängig)
IVANTSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 54706/07
KRIVDA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 22504/06
ANTONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 6193/07
MORDVINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 6226/07
FRANTSUZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 18561/09 (anhängig)
MANYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 13746/09 (anhängig)
FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 52651/07
BEREZIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 64020/09
VOINEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 26586/08
IBRAGIMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 19185/05
KOROMCHAKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 35878/08
PANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 65567/13
YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 46796/06
MAMONTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14
YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 14313/07
AKULIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13
LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 51643/08
YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 3473/11
MEFAALANI v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 52160/13
MOXAMED ISMAACIIL AND ABDIRAHMAN WARSAME v. MALTA
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10
SINISTAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 70841/10
LELYUYKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08
NOGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13
POZAIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 3082/06
TARANEKS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 25730/06
VALKADOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 49072/11
GORELOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09
YEFIMOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05
ZENTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 29687/09
ISMATULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 29964/10
BRESLAVSKAYA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 4320/05
POLOVINKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 14824/02
SYCHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2010 - 8258/06
BRAGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 3267/03
MOSKALYUK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 2295/06
CHAYKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06
SOROKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03
TSARKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 28827/02
ISAYEV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06
LYUBIMENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 1291/03
SERGEY VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 23204/07
GHAVTADZE c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 18660/03
MALENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 30628/02
UKHAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 3223/07
ALEKSEY MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 66407/17 (anhängig)
SHABAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 19277/20
FILATOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 18452/18
PISMARKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 16642/20
SHURAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2021 - 23476/15
YAKHYMOVYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.07.2020 - 74253/11
KOLBAS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10
SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 43753/13
SAPRYKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2020 - 58917/15
SENCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 7379/11
ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 39070/08
ATAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 49402/11
RYLOV AND SHARIYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.03.2019 - 76161/12
SOLODUSHCHENKO AND DEMIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.09.2018 - 43709/12
PROSTOTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2018 - 31293/11
LAZAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2018 - 16971/09
VERBNYAK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.02.2018 - 7591/12
SKRIPNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 43475/09
PANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14
ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09
DRAGAN v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 2500/07
SERGEY LEBEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 13182/04
KUTEPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 21880/03
OLSZEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 17012/09
IRAKLI MINDADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09
RAZVYAZKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08
KOZHOKAR v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 2161/02
MOLODORYCH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05
SKACHKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 28823/04
BULFINSKY v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 60922/00
STOYAN MITEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 13541/06
SHKILEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03
YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 37449/02
SHISHMANOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 66418/14
GOLOVCHENKO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 40442/07
MANELYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 19327/13
KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 4772/06
KOMAROV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 56459/07
LUKACSFY c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13
KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 27797/10
ROTARU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11
ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 3038/03
PYLNEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 41169/02
KONONOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 48809/07
MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 18589/07
KUZNETSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR - 7716/09 (anhängig)
DIMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 50468/16
MILLS v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 18471/03
RYMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 3343/06
BAGARYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 59696/00 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 59696/00
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EKMR, 13.03.1980 - 8083/77
X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 59696/00
The Court considers that a person may not claim to be a victim of a violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention which, according to him, took place in the course of proceedings in which he was acquitted or which were discontinued (see X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8083/77, Commission decision of 13 March 1980, Decisions and Reports 19, p. 223, and EÄ?inlioÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 31312/96, Commission decision of 21 October 1998).In the previous cases the Court acknowledged that an acquitted defendant could no longer claim to be a victim of alleged violations of the Convention during the proceedings (see X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8083/77, Commission decision of 13 March 1980, DR 19, p. 223).