Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,68604
EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,68604)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.12.2006 - 7649/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,68604)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Dezember 2006 - 7649/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,68604)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,68604) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (54)Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02
    It reiterates that the purpose of the rule requiring domestic remedies to be exhausted is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the alleged violations before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02
    A civil action for damages has accordingly no bearing on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 (see, most recently, Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 55669/00, 28 October 2004; and also Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, § 79).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02
    This is particularly true in the Russian legal system where the characterisation in law of the facts - and thus the sentence faced by the applicant - is determined by the prosecution without judicial review of the issue whether the evidence that has been obtained supports a reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed the alleged offence (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, 8 November 2005).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

    NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02
    A civil action for damages has accordingly no bearing on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 (see, most recently, Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 55669/00, 28 October 2004; and also Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, § 79).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02
    Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Panchenko, cited above § 102; Ilijkov, cited above, § 81; and Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05

    DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 7649/02
    Indeed, the provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 183; Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 47, 2 March 2006).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

    MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

    As the Court has previously found in other Russian cases, the calculation of the domestic time-limits depended solely on the gravity of the charges, which was decided upon by the prosecution and was not subject to judicial review (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 43, 14 December 2006, and Khudoyorov, cited above, § 180).
  • EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14370/03

    MOSKOVETS v. RUSSIA

    A civil action for damages has accordingly no bearing on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 1 (see Belchev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 39270/98, 6 February 2003; Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 55669/00, 28 October 2004; and, most recently, Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 34, 14 December 2006).

    The Court has already found that the practice of issuing collective detention orders without a case-by-case assessment of the grounds for detention in respect of each detainee is incompatible in itself with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Aleksey Makarov v. Russia, no. 3223/07, § 53, 12 June 2008; Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 45, 14 December 2006; Korchuganova, cited above, § 76; and Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, § 49, 2 March 2006).

  • EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05

    [ENG]

    In the context of an alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, this rule requires that the applicant give the domestic authorities an opportunity to consider whether his right to trial within a reasonable time has been respected and whether there exist relevant and sufficient grounds continuing to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Shcheglyuk v. Russia, no. 7649/02, § 35, 14 December 2006).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht