Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarNicht verpassen
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Di. den 27. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 19.04.2017

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,61565
EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,61565)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.01.2007 - 73819/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,61565)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Januar 2007 - 73819/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,61565)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,61565) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (65)Zitiert selbst (27)

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    The Court recalls that the protection of Article 8 applies to more than just the traditional family (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 31).
  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    A "charge" for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 can be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence" (see Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 73).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp.18-19, § 44).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    In this respect the Court recalls that in certain conditions instructions, which do not themselves have the force of law, may be taken into account in assessing whether the criterion of foreseeability was satisfied (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 37, §§ 85-90).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 41666/98

    KYRTATOS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    The Court reiterates that failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law does not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 22, § 60), however Article 6 § 1 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-VI).
  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

    HUVIG c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    To determine whether an interference was in accordance with the law, the Court applies the three-fold test of foreseeability (see Huvig v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-B, § 26).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

    SALOV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    Thus his status could not offer guarantees against arbitrary or unjustified continuation of detention as he was not endowed with the attributes of "independence" and "impartiality" required by Article 5 § 3 (see Jurjevs v. Latvia, no. 70923/01, judgment of 15 June 2006, § 60, Schiesser, cited above, §§ 29 and 30, and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, judgment of 6 September 2005 § 58).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    The Court must then establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities were "relevant" and "sufficient" to continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 93, and Lavents, cited above, § 71).One of such grounds is the danger of absconding, which cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the sentence risked and must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see Letellier, cited above, § 43).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

    Schiesser ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    However, the Convention mentions them in the same phrase and presupposes that these authorities fulfil similar functions (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, § 27).
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01
    The Court reiterates that failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law does not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Wiesinger v. Austria, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213, p. 22, § 60), however Article 6 § 1 imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of its requirements, including the obligation to hear cases within a reasonable time (Kyrtatos v. Greece, no. 41666/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-VI).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 25498/94

    MESSINA c. ITALIE (N° 2)

  • EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

    KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 70923/01

    JURJEVS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 59913/00

    VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
  • EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

    LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

    RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

    SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  • VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
  • EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

    MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

    KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 73443/01

    FREIMANIS ET LIDUMS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 45738/99

    BULLIVANT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

    MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

    Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
  • EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 16858/11

    [ENG]

    The continuous supervision should be as rigorous as the initial examination (see Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 117, 18 January 2007).

    The Court has already indicated that in principle it is the judicial orders it is called to assess when examining justification for continued detention (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 110, ECHR 2006-III (extracts), and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 122, 18 January 2007) and not the Government's posterior submissions in the absence of any domestic court rulings in this regard.

  • EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 14755/03

    Z. v. LATVIA

    The relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code (Latvijas Kriminalprocesa Kodekss), applicable at the material time (in force until 1 October 2005), are found in the Estrikh v. Latvia judgment (no. 73819/01, 18 January 2007, paragraphs 54, 55, 59 and 62-64).

    The Court first of all refers to the general principles established by its case-law as regards exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, 18 January 2007, §§ 92-94,).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00, 64846/01, 61638/00, 73819/01, 67275/01, 71072/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,11438
EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00, 64846/01, 61638/00, 73819/01, 67275/01, 71072/01 (https://dejure.org/2017,11438)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.04.2017 - 61005/00, 64846/01, 61638/00, 73819/01, 67275/01, 71072/01 (https://dejure.org/2017,11438)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. April 2017 - 61005/00, 64846/01, 61638/00, 73819/01, 67275/01, 71072/01 (https://dejure.org/2017,11438)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,11438) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KORNAKOVS ET 5 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA LETTONIE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KORNAKOVS AND 5 OTHER CASES AGAINST LATVIA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

    LEJA v. LATVIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
    71072/01.
  • EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 58497/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
    Mittelfranken/BayTTV; 30.10.2003; 5/03">05/03/2013 and Trups v. Latvia (No. 58497/08) of 20/11/2012) the Court found that the law provides for a compensatory review which is sufficiently clear and specific and rejected the complaints on the excessive length of criminal proceedings for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
  • EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
    In inadmissibility decisions (Kipens v. Latvia (No. 5436/05) of …
  • BPatG, 17.11.2011 - 3 ZA (pat) 54/11

    Patentnichtigkeitsklageverfahren - mehrere Gerichtsgebühren bei nachträglicher …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
    15/09/2006.
  • EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

    ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
    73819/01.
  • EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 61638/00

    Igors Dmitrijevs ./. Lettland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2017 - 61005/00
    61638/00.
  • EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 65014/01

    PACULA c. LETTONIE

    En l'espèce, le requérant critique les mêmes faits sous l'angle de deux dispositions de la Convention, à savoir ses articles 8 et 34. La Cour estime qu'il est opportun d'examiner le grief portant sur le contrôle de la correspondance sous l'angle de l'article 8, et celui concernant la saisie des documents adressés à la Cour, sous l'angle de la seconde phrase de l'article 34 (Kornakovs c. Lettonie, no 61005/00, § 157, 15 juin 2006, et Igors Dmitrijevs c. Lettonie, no 61638/00, § 91, 30 novembre 2006).

    En outre, la Cour estime que la crédibilité des allégations du requérant se trouve renforcée par le fait qu'au moins trois incidents similaires se sont produits dans les prisons lettonnes au cours de cette même année 2000 (Kornakovs, précité, § 165 ; Igors Dmitrijevs, précité, § 96, et Moisejevs c. Lettonie, no 64846/01, § 181, 15 juin 2006).

  • EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 64536/01

    IAMBOR c. ROUMANIE (N° 1)

    Or ce retard n'a aucunement été justifié (voir Boicenco c. Moldova, no 41088/05, § 157, 11 juillet 2006, et, a contrario, Kornakovs c. Lettonie, no 61005/00, § 172-173, 15 juin 2006).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

    MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE

    Pour sa part, la Cour estime que la crédibilité de ces allégations se trouve renforcée par le fait qu'à la même époque, en mai 2000, 1a lettre de l'un des coaccusés du requérant, M. Eduards Kornakovs, elle aussi adressée à la Cour, semble avoir connu un sort similaire (voir notamment Kornakovs c. Lettonie (déc.), no 61005/00, 21 octobre 2004).
  • EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 71072/01

    LEJA v. LATVIA

    Failure to despatch a letter addressed to the Court by itself constitutes an example of hindrance with effective exercise of the right to petition the Court (see, for example, Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, § 166, 15 June 2006, or Poleshchuk v. Russia, no. 60776/00, § 28, 7 October 2004).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 63258/00

    GAGIU c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour observe que, si le Gouvernement conteste que l'intéressé a dû faire une grève de la faim pour obtenir ces copies, il n'a pas démenti les affirmations du requérant selon lesquelles - durant ces quatre mois - on lui avait refusé de copier ces documents manuellement, en prétextant leur caractère confidentiel, et on avait cherché à le dissuader de réitérer ses demandes pour ne pas risquer un éventuel transfert dans une section à régime restrictif (paragraphes 29 et 30 ci-dessus ; a contrario, Kornakovs c. Lettonie, no 61005/00, § 173, 15 juin 2006).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 14749/03

    [ENG]

    The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Latvia, its practice concerning the right of a detained person to be tried within a reasonable time (see Svipsta, cited above, §§ 106-113; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 113-127, 18 January 2007; and Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, §§ 112-119, 15 June 2006) and concerning the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, §§ 85-87, 99-104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos.
  • EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 7843/02

    DAGIS v. LATVIA

    As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration submitted by the Government, the Court points out that there is considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 113, CEDH 2006-III (extracts); Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, §§ 127 and 143, 18 January 2007; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, §§ 119 and 142, 15 June 2006; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 104, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos.
  • EGMR, 05.05.2009 - 2233/03

    DOBROVOLSKIS v. LATVIA

    As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the Government, the Court points out that there is a considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention as regards the length of pre-trial detention and the guarantee of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (see, in particular, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, 18 January 2007; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, 9 March 2006; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, 15 June 2006; Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002; Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos.
  • EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 69458/01

    GASINS c. LETTONIE

    Or, la Cour a déjà jugé que le maintien d'un accusé en détention en application de cette disposition était en soi contraire aux exigences de l'article 5 § 1 c) de la Convention (voir Svipsta précité, §§ 85-87, ainsi que Kornakovs c. Lettonie, no 61005/00, § 89, 15 juin 2006 ; Jurjevs c. Lettonie, no 70923/01, § 43, 15 juin 2006, et Nazarenko c. Lettonie, no 76843/01, § 47, 1er février 2007) ; elle ne voit aucune raison de parvenir à une conclusion différente dans la présente affaire.
  • EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

    KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA

    As to whether it would be appropriate to strike out the present application on the basis of the unilateral declaration made by the Government, the Court points out that there is a considerable case-law with respect to the respondent State as concerns the scope and the nature of their obligations arising under Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention (see, in particular, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 127, 18 January 2007; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, 9 March 2006; Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, 15 June 2006; Ž.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht