Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
Non-violation de l'art. 5-4 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 6-1 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
REINPRECHT v. AUSTRIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Art. 5-4 No separate issue under Art. 6-1 (englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01
- EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 67175/01
- EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
Papierfundstellen
- NStZ 2008, 145
Wird zitiert von ... (38) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76
Schiesser ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and Assenov and Others, cited above, p. 3302, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
The Court had to examine the question whether Article 6 applied to proceedings concerning a request for release from pre-trial detention in one of its early cases, namely Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, pp. 43-44, §§ 23-24). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83
LAMY c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
The Court agrees that there is a close link between Article 5 § 4 and Article 6 § 1 in the sphere of criminal proceedings (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29, and Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, § 41, 31 January 2002).
- EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and Assenov and Others, cited above, p. 3302, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
In this context, the Court reiterates that the Articles of the Convention have to be interpreted in harmony with each other (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 40, § 103). - EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
(b) Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI, both with a reference to Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22). - EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
Thus, Article 6 has been found to have some application at the pre-trial stage (see, for instance, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36, and John Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, p. 54, § 62) during which the review of the lawfulness of pre-trial detention under Article 5 § 4 typically takes place. - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
KAMPANIS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and Assenov and Others, cited above, p. 3302, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
- EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05
A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Although it is not always necessary that an Article 5 § 4 procedure be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the type of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, § 57, Series A no. 33; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, §§ 57 and 60, Series A no. 129; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005). - EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09
HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
Whilst it might not be practicable, in the course of an international armed conflict, for the legality of detention to be determined by an independent "court" in the sense generally required by Article 5 § 4 (see, in the latter context, Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII), nonetheless, if the Contracting State is to comply with its obligations under Article 5 § 4 in this context, the "competent body" should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and fair procedure to protect against arbitrariness. - EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas
Although the procedure under Article 5 § 4 need not always be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 of the Convention for civil or criminal litigation - as the two provisions pursue different aims (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-XII) - it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 41, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03
IDALOV c. RUSSIE
Si la procédure au titre de l'article 5 § 4 ne doit pas toujours s'accompagner de garanties identiques à celles que l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention prescrit pour les procès civils ou pénaux, il faut qu'elle revête un caractère judiciaire et offre des garanties adaptées à la nature de la privation de liberté en question (Reinprecht c. Autriche, no 67175/01, § 31, CEDH 2005-XII). - EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01
SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
(e) The proceedings referred to in Article 5 § 4 need not always be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 for civil or criminal litigation, as the two provisions pursue different aims (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-...., with further references). - EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17
EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte
The primary procedural guarantee flowing from Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is the right to an effective hearing by the court determining an appeal against detention (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 126, ECHR 2000-XI; and Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11
ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA
It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A, and Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 33, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17
AHMET HÜSREV ALTAN v. TURKEY
Although the procedure under Article 5 § 4 need not always be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 of the Convention for civil or criminal litigation - as the two provisions pursue different aims (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-XII) - it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 41, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05
MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA
Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, among many other authorities, Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII). - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08
PYATKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09
KOROLEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
- EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01
NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06
STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04
GUBIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 11956/07
STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 1)
- EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05
KORNEYKOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 28932/14
HODZIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 23229/11
KARACHENTSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 28724/11
ALOUACHE c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 44153/06
AYDEMIR v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 11621/09
MITRESKI v.
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02
VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20
BAH v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 25481/16
DOLOMISIEWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06
BULIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06
NAIMDZHON YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 18480/06
KURATOW c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 40876/07
BALA c. GRECE
- EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 32814/07
GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 3)
- EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11
UMIROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03
G.O. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 18837/06
ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03
YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 34361/06
SLYUSAR v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 7923/04
BUTUSOV v. RUSSIA
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 67175/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
REINPRECHT v. AUSTRIA
Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01
- EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 67175/01
- EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01
- EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 67175/01
- EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01
The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence requires that no State authority - not only a judge or court but also any other public authority - declare that a person is guilty of having committed an offence before that guilt is established by a court (see, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, § 35).