CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENGSatisfaction
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 mars 2016
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-10897
- Date
- 24 mars 2016
- Publication
- 24 mars 2016
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleViolation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 194 March 2016 Zherebin v. Russia - 51445/09 Judgment 24.3.2016 [Section I] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Measures of a general character Respondent State required to continue to adopt measures to address structural problem relating to excessive length of pre-trial detention Facts – In 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a flagrant breach of public peace and order, committed in concert by an organised group. He was remanded in custody during the investigation and subsequent trial for more than seven months. He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Law – Article 5 § 3: By failing to consider alternative “preventive measures”, by relying essentially on the seriousness of the charges and by shifting the burden of proof to the applicant, the authorities had extended the applicant’s detention on grounds which, although “relevant”, could not be regarded as “sufficient” to justify its duration. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 46: The Court had delivered more than 110   judgments against Russia in which a violation of Article 5 §   3 on account of the excessive length of detention had been found and approximately 700   applications raising a similar issue were pending before it. This issue had already been considered by the Committee of Ministers . Furthermore, according to official data the domestic courts granted approximately 90% of all initial applications for remand in custody lodged by prosecuting authorities and more than 93% of requests for extension of pre-trial detention. These findings demonstrated that the violation of the applicant’s right under Article 5 §   3 was neither prompted by an isolated incident, nor attributable to a particular turn of events, but originated from a structural problem consisting of a practice that was incompatible with the Convention. The Court welcomed the steps already taken by Russia to remedy the problems related to pre-trial detention. However, in view of the extent of the systemic problem at issue, the respondent State had a legal obligation to select, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress so far as possible the effects. In this connection, the Court stressed the importance of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings and reiterated the recent recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly summed up in Resolution no.   2077 (2015) adopted on 1   October 2015, as regards the measures aimed at reducing pre-trial detention. Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information NotesCitations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Dispositif
- Satisfaction
- Date
- 24 mars 2016
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-10897
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral