Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  Where such grounds were "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, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  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, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  The Court considers that these two periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy", and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six and twenty-nine days).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  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, 04.03.2003 - 63486/00

  POSOKHOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  A finding of a violation has been reached on account of the domestic authorities' failure to produce documentary evidence showing that the lay judges had been appointed to the office in accordance with the procedure established by domestic law, combined with the apparent failure to observe the requirements of the Lay Judges Act regarding the drawing of random lots and the maximum length of service per year (see, for example, Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 41-44, 13 April 2006, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  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, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  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, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01

  Gesetzlicher Richter gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; Besetzung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  A finding of a violation has been reached on account of the domestic authorities' failure to produce documentary evidence showing that the lay judges had been appointed to the office in accordance with the procedure established by domestic law, combined with the apparent failure to observe the requirements of the Lay Judges Act regarding the drawing of random lots and the maximum length of service per year (see, for example, Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 41-44, 13 April 2006, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, §§ 40-44, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  The Court considers that these two periods cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that their entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy", and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the appeal proceedings lasted thirty-six, twenty-six, thirty-six and twenty-nine days).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02

  MELNIKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 4815/18

  KARGASHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.

  Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court's omission to extend the applicant's detention following the quashing of the first-instance court detention order or a conviction/appeal decision on conviction (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011), Breach of Code of Criminal Procedure in applying detention.

• EGMR - 41232/18 (anhängig)

  POPOV v. RUSSIAd 29 other applications

  The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.

  Lack of legal basis for detention owing to the higher court's omission to extend the applicant's detention following the quashing of the first-instance court detention order or a conviction/appeal decision on conviction (see Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011).

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 52342/20

  LAVROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 34241/16

  KHORRSHR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 20948/13

  MEZAK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 3345/18

  OVCHAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 48582/18 (anhängig)

  RUDAKOVA v. RUSSIA and 23 other applications

  The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 84744/17 (anhängig)

  AYDAROV v. RUSSIA and 19 other applications

  The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 38147/18 (anhängig)

  MAKHAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 18 other applications

  The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 3001/18 (anhängig)

  KADULIN v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications

  The applications concern complaints raised under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention relating to unlawful detention (deprivation of liberty) which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Fortalnov and Others v. Russia, nos. 7077/06 and 12 others, 26 June 2018, Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, §§ 91-96, 31 January 2017, Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 67, 13 February 2018, Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, § 81, 3 March 2011 and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 24712/21 (anhängig)

  KUZMIN v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications
• EGMR - 30342/19 (anhängig)

  LEVCHENKO v. RUSSIA and 10 other applications
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 40408/18

  GORYUNKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 38503/18

  MIRONOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 76201/17

  KAVKAZSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 10722/21 (anhängig)

  KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications
• EGMR - 10869/18 (anhängig)

  RYABININ v. RUSSIA and 19 other applications
• EGMR - 26529/18 (anhängig)

  BOYAROV v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR - 4374/18 (anhängig)

  GOGOLEV v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications