Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 12.10.2004 | EGMR, 08.04.2003

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,41771
EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,41771)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15.11.2005 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,41771)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 15. November 2005 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2005,41771)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,41771) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NStZ 2008, 145
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 67175/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,59835
EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,59835)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.10.2004 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,59835)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Oktober 2004 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2004,59835)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,59835) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,56152
EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2003,56152)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.04.2003 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2003,56152)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. April 2003 - 67175/01 (https://dejure.org/2003,56152)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,56152) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht