Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

• EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  All in all, the Court has no difficulty in accepting that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicants and that the reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicants' continued detention were "relevant" and "sufficient" within the meaning of its case-law (see also ? tvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, §§ 57-66, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 19699/18

  AKGÜN c. TURQUIE

  Dans des affaires de ce type, il peut s'avérer essentiel de surveiller et limiter sans relâche les contacts entre les accusés, d'une part, et entre ceux-ci et des tiers, d'autre part, pour éviter que les premiers ne s'enfuient, n'altèrent les preuves ou n'influencent voire ne menacent les témoins (Lisovskij c. Lituanie, 36249/14, § 67, 2 mai 2017, Bak c. Pologne, no 7870/04, § 56, 16 janvier 2007, Stvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, 61, 5 juin 2018, et Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, 66357/14, § 149, 13 avril 2017).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017), in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018), in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017), in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (see Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).

 
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 25658/19

  BANEVI c. BULGARIE

  La présomption étant toujours en faveur de la libération, il appartenait aux autorités bulgares d'exposer des arguments particulièrement solides pour maintenir le requérant en détention pendant une si longue période (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et ? tvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018 in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20

  STAYKOV c. BULGARIE

  Le caractère raisonnable de la durée de détention 82. La Cour observe d'emblée que cette durée de détention en l'espèce pourrait être sérieusement préoccupante et exiger une justification très solide (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et ? tvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  HAVIK AND VAIK v. ESTONIA

  The general principles regarding the application of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention have been set out in the judgments of Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 102, ECHR 2016) and Merabishvili v. Georgia ([GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222 and 225, 28 November 2017); for a recent application of those principles in a case similar to the instant one, see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia (no. 55844/12, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 12928/20

  ABULADZE v. ESTONIA

  The general principles regarding the application of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention have been set out in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 102, ECHR 2016) and Merabishvili v. Georgia ([GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222 and 225, 28 November 2017); for a more recent application of those principles in a case similar to the instant one, see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia (no. 55844/12, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018, in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 45087/19

  PODOLINSKI AND KAER v. ESTONIA

  The general principles regarding the application of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention have been set out in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 102, ECHR 2016), and Merabishvili v. Georgia ([GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222 and 225, 28 November 2017); for a more recent application of those principles, see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia (no. 55844/12, 5 June 2018, and Havik and Vaik v. Estonia ((dec.) [Committee], nos.