Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHUKHARDIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (92)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  The Court therefore considers that these five 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, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  The Court therefore considers that these five 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, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were found not to have been "speedy").
• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  As regards the domestic authorities' reliance on the gravity of the charges as the decisive element, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral, cited above, § 68; and Ilijkov, cited above, § 81).

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  It must be examined with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding and reoffending or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 19, § 43; and Panchenko, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

  DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  In the Court's view, this approach is incompatible, in itself, with the guarantees enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in so far as it permits the continued detention of a group of persons without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention or of compliance with the "reasonable-time" requirement in respect of each individual member of the group (see Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the mere absence of a fixed residence and work does not give rise to a danger of absconding (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005).
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 50358/99

  PEKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  It is hence not necessary to examine whether the proceedings against the applicant were conducted with due diligence during that period (see Pekov v. Bulgaria, no. 50358/99, § 85, 30 March 2006).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law are clearly defined and that the law itself is foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 65734/01

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law are clearly defined and that the law itself is foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• KAG Münster, 12.07.2010 - 28/09

  Einführung einer Verteilung der Dienstzeiten auf 5,5 Tage-Woche; Verstoß gegen §§ …
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 38004/12

  Mariya Alekhina u.a. ./. Russland - "Pussy Riot"-Urteil verletzt Meinungsfreiheit

  It has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention by relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many other authorities, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 37717/05

  Die Kommunikation mit dem Verteidiger darf nicht abgehört werden, egal wann

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; and Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts extended an applicant's detention relying essentially on the gravity of the charges and using stereotyped formulae without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Khudoyorov, cited above; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts" failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants" detention (see, among many others, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; and Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already, on numerous occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, and has found a violation of that Article on the grounds that the domestic courts had extended an applicant's detention whilst essentially relying on the gravity of the charges and using stereotypical formulae, without addressing his or her specific situation or considering alternative preventive measures (see, among many others, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Zherebin v. Russia, no. 51445/09, §§ 59-63, 24 March 2016; and Dudchenko v. Russia, no. 37717/05, §§ 138-40, 7 November 2017).
• EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 5425/11

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  It is for the Contracting States to organise their legal system in such a way that their law-enforcement authorities can meet the obligation to avoid unjustified deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 93, 28 June 2007; and Mokallal v. Ukraine, no. 19246/10, § 44, 10 November 2011).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 14850/03

  MATYUSH v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of relevant domestic law concerning detention on remand see Shukhardin v. Russia (no. 65734/01, §§ 36-56, 28 June 2007).

  The Court notes, and the parties did not dispute the fact, that the decision of 10 July 2001, as upheld on appeal on 25 October 2002, could not be construed as a formal order authorising the applicant's continued detention during the period prior to 1 July 2002 (see Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 81, 28 June 2007, and Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, § 61, 21 June 2007).

• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  [ENG]

  The Court has already, on a large number of occasions, examined applications against Russia raising similar complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the Russian courts' failure to provide sufficient and relevant grounds for applicants' detention (see, among many others, Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 108-11, 27 November 2012; Valeriy Samoylov v. Russia, no. 57541/09, 24 January 2012; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, 11 October 2011; Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011; Sutyagin v. Russia, no. 30024/02, 3 May 2011; Logvinenko v. Russia, no. 44511/04, 17 June 2010; Goroshchenya v. Russia, no. 38711/03, 22 April 2010; Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, 1 April 2010; Makarenko v. Russia, no. 5962/03, 22 December 2009; Lamazhyk v. Russia, no. 20571/04, 30 July 2009; Avdeyev and Veryayev v. Russia, no. 2737/04, 9 July 2009; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009; Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, 9 December 2008; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, 3 July 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, 28 June 2007; Mishketkul and Others v. Russia, no. 36911/02, 24 May 2007; Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, 24 May 2007; Solovyev v. Russia, no. 2708/02, 24 May 2007; Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, 24 May 2007; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006; Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, 7 April 2005; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court also notes, and the parties did not dispute the fact, that the decision of 15 October 2003, which was quashed on appeal on 13 November 2003, could not be construed as a formal order authorising the applicant's continued detention during the period between 15 October and 6 November 2003 (see Matyush v. Russia, no. 14850/03, § 63, 9 December 2008; Shukhardin v. Russia, no. 65734/01, § 81, 28 June 2007; and Melnikova v. Russia, no. 24552/02, § 61, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 9096/09

  ABASHEV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 122 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  65734/01.
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

  CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 20571/04

  LAMAZHYK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

  MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 41858/08

  IDALOV v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 27335/13

  SHALYA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 42296/09

  KOVROV v. RUSSIA and 11 other applications
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 61582/10

  SOLODNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

  KOLOMENSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 41090/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 3627/06

  GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 40573/08

  NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 34180/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 54749/12

  KALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03

  AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 6277/06

  LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  PROSHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2011 - 19246/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 42282/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41168/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51389/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 10341/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 16120/07

  GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 41472/06

  CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 61510/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 21731/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04

  SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 54575/12

  KARAPAS v. UKRAINE and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39655/10

  DERGALEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 29769/09

  YUGAY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 63038/10

  RODKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49689/10

  DZHASYBAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 7955/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 69863/13

  DAVLYASHOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 54929/09

  MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 38911/07

  TUMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09

  URMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 676/09

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 22727/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 5969/09

  RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 51311/12

  MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 7243/10

  YEVSTRATOV AND RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34942/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 9994/06

  PODDUBNYY AND BABKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 44815/10

  SHEPEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 31691/10

  ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3243/06

  LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29448/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 22921/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 22475/05

  DOLGOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 38726/05

  PELEVIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 17614/08

  NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 9237/14

  MYALICHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 42080/11

  ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 1618/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 35411/05

  PETR PONOMAREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.02.2010 - 24173/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 25071/07

  DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 60249/13

  LYUBIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 80015/12

  DEVTEROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 35413/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 23684/06

  KHANBIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 29993/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 6749/06

  [ENG]