Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Reasonable suspicion;Reasonably ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  It therefore joins this preliminary issue to the merits (Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 50, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  The Court considers that, although this complaint is admissible, given its finding in respect of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 56 above), it is not necessary to examine this complaint (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 194, ECHR 2004-II; Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 111).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  In the light of the above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129 and 130, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  The Court considers that, although this complaint is admissible, given its finding in respect of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 56 above), it is not necessary to examine this complaint (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 194, ECHR 2004-II; Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 63, Series A no. 111).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  This may be the case even when there is no direct physical restraint of the applicant, such as by handcuffing or placement in a locked cell (see, for instance, Popoviciu v. Romania, no. 52942/09, § 59, 1 March 2016; Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 100, 13 November 2014; Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania, no. 41040/11, § 89, 13 January 2015; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 70, 16 September 2014; Ghiurau v. Romania, no. 55421/10, § 80, 20 November 2012; Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 36, 26 June 2014, with further references therein; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  In the light of the above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129 and 130, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  It reiterates that unrecorded deprivation of liberty, in the absence of any plausible explanation by the Government for this, is in itself sufficient to find a violation of Article 5 § 1 (for instance Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 87-98, ECHR 2006-III; El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 237, ECHR 2012; Gavula v. Ukraine, no. 52652/07, §§ 82-85, 16 May 2013; and Oleynik v. Russia, no. 23559/07, §§ 38-39, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  While Article 18 is, by virtue of its text, an accessory provision (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV), this cannot be taken to mean that the provision need not be examined where the Court has found a violation of the right or freedom in connection with which it is invoked.
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 26587/07

  KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  This may be the case even when there is no direct physical restraint of the applicant, such as by handcuffing or placement in a locked cell (see, for instance, Popoviciu v. Romania, no. 52942/09, § 59, 1 March 2016; Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 100, 13 November 2014; Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania, no. 41040/11, § 89, 13 January 2015; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 70, 16 September 2014; Ghiurau v. Romania, no. 55421/10, § 80, 20 November 2012; Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 36, 26 June 2014, with further references therein; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  In the light of the above, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129 and 130, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014, and Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 76672/12

  HOALGA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  IUSTIN ROBERTINO MICU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  VALERIAN DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 52652/07

  GAVULA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 23559/07

  OLEYNIK c. RUSSIE

• EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 47287/15

  Transitzonen grundsätzlich erlaubt

  The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with the references therein; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Even after that judgment the Court has on a number of occasions dismissed or declined to examine complaints under Article 18 without giving detailed reasons, as it had done before 2004 (see, among others, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 206, ECHR 2005-IV; Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-I; Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, §§ 129-30, 31 July 2014; Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 116-17, 4 December 2014; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 172-73, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2016; and Kasparov and Others v. Russia (no. 2), no. 51988/07, § 55, 13 December 2016).

  By the same token, the majority's finding that it was not necessary to examine Article 18 was criticised by minority judges in Georgia v. Russia (I), cited above; Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, 11 October 2016; Navalnyy v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 24712/21

  KUZMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  60921/17 and 7202/18, §§ 77-90, 30 April 2019, as to administrative conviction for making calls to participate in public assemblies; Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 66-69, 11 October 2016, concerning prevention of assembly participation by the arrest and detention; and Martynyuk v. Russia, no. 13764/15, §§ 38-42, 8 October 2019, relating to the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.

 
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 53194/16

  ZAKHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In the leading cases of Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014, Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013, as well as Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 66-69, 11 October 2016, the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court finds that such evidence at the relevant time was sufficient to satisfy an objective observer that the first applicant might have committed the offence he was accused of (compare with Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast with Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 53, 11 October 2016; Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 29580/12

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA

  Article 18 protects a legal interest separate from that protected by, for example, Article 5 of the Convention; any other conclusion would deprive the provision of a reasonable and independent scope of application (compare, in overall terms, the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Keller in Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 3, 11 October 2016)[1].
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 23.03.2023 - C-209/22

  Rayonna prokuratura Lovech, TO Lukovit (Fouille corporelle) - Vorlage zur …

  43 EGMR, Urteil vom 11. Oktober 2016, Kasparov/Russland (CE:ECHR:2016:1011JUD005365907, § 46).
• EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 61411/15

  Gestrandete Flüchtlingen am Moskauer Flughafen: Gefangen in der Transitzone?

  The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with further references; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 15064/12

  RAGIP ZARAKOLU c. TURQUIE

  Il est vrai que la Cour a déjà admis - à de rares occasions - qu'il existe un lien entre la régularité d'une détention aux fins de l'article 5 de la Convention et la légalité d'une ingérence dans l'exercice du droit à la liberté d'expression au sens de l'article 10 de la Convention (Steel et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 23 septembre 1998, § 94, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-VII, et Kandjov c. Bulgarie, no 68294/01, § 72, 6 novembre 2008) ou du droit à la liberté de réunion pacifique tel que garanti par l'article 11 de la Convention (Kasparov c. Russie, no 53659/07, § 69, 11 octobre 2016, et Hakim Aydin c. Turquie, no 4048/09, § 51, 26 mai 2020).
• EGMR - 14379/18 (anhängig)

  NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications

  11 (2) -interference with freedom of assembly - the applicant's arrest and detention on 29/09/2017 barred him from travelling to Nizhniy Novgorod and participating in the rally, which was intended to inform people about his activities (see Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, §§ 65-69, 11 October 2016).
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 54250/18

  KOLESNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 21840/13

  KRAMARENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA