Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=19.05.2004&Aktenzeichen=70276%2F01
Timestamp: 2019-01-19 03:17:16
Document Index: 723362376

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 18', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 18', 'art. 5', 'art. 18', '§ 75', '§ 73', '§ 73', '§ 73', '§ 73', '§ 77', '§ 1', '§ 73', '§ 75', '§ 70', '§ 55', '§ 42', '§ 57', '§ 90', '§ 121', '§ 74', '§ 57', '§ 75', '§ 75']

EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01 - dejure.org
EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01
Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c EMRK; Rechtmäßigkeit und Gesetzmäßigkeit der Inhaftierung: Inkorporation des nationalen Rechts, qualitative Anforderungen an das Gesetz bei Art. 5 EMRK und Prüfung des nationalen Rechts durch den EGMR; Schutz vor Willkür); immanente Geltung der rule of law innerhalb der EMRK; Verbot der zweckentfremdenden Berufung auf Schranken der EMRK durch den Staat (hier: Missbrauch des Strafverfahrens und der Untersuchungshaft zur Erzwingung des Verkaufs eines Medienunternehmens); Freiheit der Person; Rechtsstaatsprinzip
Art. 18, Art. 41, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 18+5 MRK
Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 18+5 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)
GOUSSINSKI c. RUSSIE
Violation de l'art. 5 Violation de l'art. 18+5 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)
EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 70276/01
It can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).
Article 18 can be applied together with another Article even if there has been no violation of the main Article (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
Thus, in Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2004-... (extracts)), the Court accepted that the applicant's liberty was restricted, inter alia, for a purpose other than those mentioned in Article 5. The Court in that case based its findings on an agreement signed between the detainee and a federal minister of the press.
[7] Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV.
Also, allegations of hidden motives were not by their nature susceptible to proof, except in very rare cases such as Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV); in the present case the arguments advanced by the applicant were no more than speculation or a personal perception, devoid of any tangible evidence.
It also follows from the terms of Article 18 that a violation can only arise where the right or freedom concerned is subject to restrictions permitted under the Convention (see, for example, Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
The Court's case-law states that Article 18 of the Convention can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention, and a violation can only arise where the right or freedom concerned is subject to restrictions permitted under the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
In Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 77, ECHR 2004-IV), for example, the Court held that "the restriction of the applicant's liberty permitted under Article 5 § 1 (c) was applied not only for the purpose of bringing [the applicant] before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, but also for other reasons".
From the wording of Article 18 it is clear that it applies only to rights and freedoms which are subject to restrictions permitted in the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004-IV).
It can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 75, 19 May 2004).
At the hearing the applicants and the Russian Government requested the Court to raise of its own motion the issue of the application of Article 18 of the Convention and to hold that there had been a violation of that Article, as in Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, §§ 70-78, ECHR 2004-IV).
Nothing in that material appears to cast doubt on the reasonableness of the suspicion against the applicant, either on the facts or as a matter of criminal law (compare Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 55, ECHR 2004-IV, and contrast Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, §§ 42-45, Reports 1997-II; Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, §§ 57-61, 6 November 2008; Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, §§ 90-99, 22 May 2014; and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, §§ 121-32, 17 March 2016).
Detention cannot be used as a means of exerting moral pressure on an accused (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2004-IV, and Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, §§ 57-58, 13 January 2009).
It can only be applied in conjunction with other Articles of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).
After coherently describing all the details (see paragraphs 34-45 above), the applicant claimed that the incident bore strong similarities to a situation described in a landmark case under Article 18 of the Convention, Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 75, ECHR 2004-IV).
EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 22567/02
EGMR - 67894/17 (anhängig)
EGMR - 25809/17 (anhängig)