Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GALUASHVILI v. GEORGIA
Art. 2, Art. ... 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76
Schiesser ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
Under the latter provision, the proceedings bearing on the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness", in Convention terms, of his deprivation of liberty must be adversarial and must always ensure "equality of arms" between the parties (see, among many others, Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, § 65; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31).However, this consideration must be qualified by the right of the detainee or his counsel to have a real opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the prosecutor's submission during the review - i.e. at an oral hearing (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31).
- EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
However, it must be noted that it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those afforded by Article 6 of the Convention (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22). - EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
WLOCH v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
However, it must be noted that it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those afforded by Article 6 of the Convention (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22). - EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 24919/03
MATHEW CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
The applicant did not inform the Court what kind of treatment he had been provided with, or what was requested but withheld from him (see Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, §§ 185-195, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 32800/96
YAVUZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
In view of this requirement of speed, which is one of the core principles of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the domestic courts cannot be obliged to institute the exchange of all of the parties" documents, which would render it impossible to take a decision within the statutory time-limit of 24 hours (cf. Yavuz v. Austria (dec.), 32800/96, 18 January 2000).