Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,49397
EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,49397)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.06.2006 - 75039/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,49397)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Juni 2006 - 75039/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,49397)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,49397) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
    Violations of Art. 5-1 (two periods) No violation of Art. 5-1 (one period) Violation of Art. 5-3 (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 ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
    It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be 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; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
    It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be 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; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
    The Court has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - was incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-...; Jecius, cited above, §§ 60-64, and Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-58).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01
    Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 102, 8 February 2005; Goral, cited above, § 68; Ilijkov, cited above, § 81).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 65655/01

    Menschenrechte: Überlange Untersuchungshaft, "La Belle"

    Der Gerichtshof hat in früheren Fällen befunden, dass eine Untersuchungshaft von mehr als fünf Jahren eine Verletzung von Artikel 5 Abs. 3 der Konvention darstellte (siehe Korchuganova ./. Russland , Nr. 75039/01, Randnr. 77, 8. Juni 2006; I.A. ./. Frankreich , Urteil vom 23. September 1998, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1998-VII, Randnr. 112; und Khudoyorov ./. Russland , Nr. 6847/02, Randnr. 189, ECHR 2005-...(Auszüge)).
  • EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

    BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

    It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - was 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 Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 57, 8 June 2006; Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, §§ 67-68, 2 March 2006; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-148, ECHR 2005-...; Jecius, cited above, §§ 60-64, and Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-58).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 15710/07

    ELSNER v. AUSTRIA (No. 1)

    The Court reiterates that a court's decision to order and maintain a custodial measure would not breach Article 5 § 1 provided that the court had acted within its jurisdiction, had the power to make an appropriate order, and had given reasons for its decision to maintain the custodial measure, for which it had also set a time-limit (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, § 62, 8 June 2006; and Pshevecherskiy v. Russia, no. 28957/02, §§ 41-46, 24 May 2007).
  • EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29044/06

    SHABANI c. SUISSE

    Il reste à vérifier si les autorités judiciaires ont apporté une « diligence particulière'à la poursuite de la procédure, d'autant plus que la Cour a jugé dans des affaires antérieures qu'une détention provisoire de plus de cinq ans constituait une violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (voir Kortchouganova c. Russie, no 75039/01, § 77, 8 juin 2006 ; I.A. c. France, précité, p. 2983, § 112 ; et Khoudoyorov c. Russie, précité, § 189).
  • EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

    KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

    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, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

    YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

    It has held that the practice of keeping defendants in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and 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; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 144-51, ECHR 2005-X).
  • EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 67320/10

    BULATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

    As there were no exceptional circumstances in the present case that could justify such lengthy proceedings (compare and contrast to Chraidi v. Germany, cited above, §§ 43-45), the Court considers that the applicant's detention exceeding five years was extended beyond a reasonable time (see Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 71 in limine and 77, 8 June 2006; I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, §§ 98 and 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 175 and 189, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.01.2012 - 29119/09

    ESPARZA LURI c. FRANCE

    Il convient donc d'examiner si les autorités judiciaires ont apporté « une diligence particulière'à la conduite de la procédure, d'autant plus que la Cour a jugé dans des affaires antérieures qu'une détention provisoire de plus de cinq ans constituait une violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (I.A. c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 112, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, Blondet c. France, no 49451/99, § 42, 5 octobre 2004, Cretello c. France, no 2078/04, § 35, 23 janvier 2007, Kortchouganova c. Russie, no 75039/01, § 77, 8 juin 2006 ; voir, à l'inverse, Chraidi c. Allemagne, no 65655/01, §§ 46 à 48, CEDH 2006-XII, et Shabani c. Suisse, no 29044/06, § 64, 5 novembre 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.01.2012 - 29116/09

    GUIMON ESPARZA c. FRANCE

    Il convient donc d'examiner si les autorités judiciaires ont apporté « une diligence particulière'à la conduite de la procédure, d'autant plus que la Cour a jugé dans des affaires antérieures qu'une détention provisoire de plus de cinq ans constituait une violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (I.A. c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 112, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, Blondet c. France, no 49451/99, § 42, 5 octobre 2004, Cretello c. France, no 2078/04, § 35, 23 janvier 2007, Kortchouganova c. Russie, no 75039/01, § 77, 8 juin 2006 ; voir, à l'inverse, Chraidi c. Allemagne, no 65655/01, §§ 46 à 48, CEDH 2006-XII, et Shabani c. Suisse, no 29044/06, § 64, 5 novembre 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.01.2012 - 29095/09

    BERASATEGI c. FRANCE

    Il convient donc d'examiner si les autorités judiciaires ont apporté « une diligence particulière'à la conduite de la procédure, d'autant plus que la Cour a jugé dans des affaires antérieures qu'une détention provisoire de plus ou moins cinq ans constituait une violation de l'article 5 § 3 de la Convention (I.A. c. France, 23 septembre 1998, § 112, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, Blondet c. France, no 49451/99, § 42, 5 octobre 2004, Cretello c. France, no 2078/04, § 35, 23 janvier 2007, Kortchouganova c. Russie, no 75039/01, § 77, 8 juin 2006 ; voir cependant, à l'inverse, Chraidi c. Allemagne, no 65655/01, §§ 47-48, CEDH 2006-XII, et Shabani c. Suisse, no 29044/06, § 64, 5 novembre 2009).
  • EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 26627/05

    KARIMBAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05

    ZUYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

    SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 17283/02

    YELOYEV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 2763/13

    KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.01.2012 - 29101/09

    SORIA VALDERRAMA c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.01.2012 - 29109/09

    SAGARZAZU c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 26127/03

    VITRUK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 35231/02

    SVERSHOV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 47230/11

    BOGOSYAN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

    GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 4903/10

    GAYDUKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02

    BALCIUNAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 16206/06

    BERIDZE v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16264/05

    VASILIY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 27672/03

    BURYAGA v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

    YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04

    NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht