Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHIESSER c. SUISSE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'Art. 5-3 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SCHIESSER v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

• egmr.org

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 12.07.1977 - 7710/76
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

Papierfundstellen

• Serie A Nr. 34

Wird zitiert von ... (83)

• EGMR, 23.06.1981 - 6878/75

  LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN ET DE MEYERE c. BELGIQUE

  Nachdem diese Rüge von der Kommission wegen Nichterschöpfung des innerstaatlichen Rechtsweges zurückgewiesen worden ist (...), liegt sie außerhalb des vor den Gerichtshof gebrachten Rechtsstreits (vgl. insbesondere Schiesser, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 1979, Série A Nr. 34, S. 17, Ziff. 41, EGMR-E 1, 462).
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3394/03

  Medvedyev u. a. ./. Frankreich

  Sur ce dernier point, elle précisa notamment que si les mesures prises en application de la loi du 15 juillet 1994 avaient été placées sous le contrôle du procureur de la République, ce dernier n'était pas une « autorité judiciaire'au sens que la jurisprudence de la Cour donne à cette notion (Schiesser c. Suisse, arrêt du 4 décembre 1979, série A no 34, §§ 29-30).

  Tout en relevant que les autorités espagnoles étaient intervenues légalement pour arraisonner le navire battant pavillon panaméen, l'Espagne et le Panama étant parties à la Convention de Vienne de 1988, ils critiquent le fait de n'avoir pas été détenus sur le navire sous la supervision d'un « juge ou un autre magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires ", mais du procureur de la République qui n'a pas cette qualité au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour (Schiesser c. Suisse, 4 décembre 1979, série A no 34, Huber c. Suisse, 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, et Brincat c. Italie, 26 novembre 1992, série A no 249-A), en particulier en raison de son manque d'indépendance par rapport au pouvoir exécutif.

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Er ist daher auch nicht befugt, die Gesetze von 1956 und 1965 als solche an der Konvention zu messen, die im Übrigen in ihren Grundsätzen auch vom Bf. nicht gerügt werden, sondern allein die Art und Weise ihrer Anwendung auf den Bf., also die Umstände unter denen er sich vom 8. Februar 1975 bis zum 22. Juli 1976 auf Asinara aufhielt (…Deweer, a.a.O., S. 21, Ziff. 40, EGMR-E 1, 470 und Schiesser, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 1979, Série A Nr. 34, S. 14, Ziff. 32, EGMR-E 1, 459 f.;… vgl. auch Irland gegen Vereinigtes Königreich, a.a.O., S. 60, Ziff. 149).

 
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  As regards the scope of that review, the formulation which has been at the basis of the Court's long-established case-law dates back to the early case of Schiesser v. Switzerland (4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34):.

  The procedural requirement places the "officer" under the obligation of hearing himself the individual brought before him (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp [v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979], p. 24, § 60, [Series A no. 33]); the substantive requirement imposes on him the obligations of reviewing the circumstances militating for or against detention, of deciding, by reference to legal criteria, whether there are reasons to justify detention and of ordering release if there are no such reasons (... Ireland v. the United Kingdom, [18 January 1978], p. 76, § 199, [Series A no. 25])." (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34).

  It has stated that the judicial officer must review "the circumstances militating for or against detention" (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34); "consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III); and, in a recent judgment, "consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 231, ECHR 2003-VI).

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Weiterhin führt er den Fall an, dass der Bf. einen bislang nicht vorgetragenen Beschwerdepunkt vorbringt und die Regierung deshalb noch keine Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme hatte (Verweis auf Delcourt, Urteil vom 17. Januar 1970, Série A Nr. 11, S. 8, Ziff. 15, und S. 19-20, Ziff. 39-40, EGMR-E 1, 105, sowie auf Schiesser, Urteil vom 4. Dezember 1979, Série A Nr. 34, S. 10, Ziff. 20-21, EGMR-E 1, 456 und S. 16-17, Ziff. 39-41, EGMR-E 1, 461 f.).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  "In this connection, the Federal Court has held that the District Attorney of the Canton of Zürich exercises judicial power (ATF 102 Ia 180, confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights, Publications of the European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 34,...; see also ATF 107 Ia 254).

  Its Delegate invited the Court to depart from the Schiesser judgment of 4 December 1979 (Series A no. 34), which also concerned the status and duties of the District Attorney of the Canton of Zürich.

  However, I had in mind that the Schiesser judgment (Series A no. 34) would be confirmed, with some of its ambiguous elements removed, rather than overruled.

• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  La question de savoir si la persistance d'un tel soupçon permet, à elle seule, de prolonger une détention régulièrement ordonnée ne relève pas du paragraphe 1 c) de l'article 5 (art. 5-1-c) mais du paragraphe 3 (art. 5-3) (arrêt Stögmüller du 10 novembre 1969, série A no 9, p. 40, par. 4): celui-ci, qui forme un tout avec celui-là (arrêt Schiesser du 4 décembre 1979, série A no 34, p. 12, par. 29, avec les références), a essentiellement pour objet d'imposer l'élargissement du moment où la détention cesse d'être raisonnable (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Stögmüller précité, p. 39, par. 3).

  Dans son arrêt Schiesser du 4 décembre 1979, 1a Cour a interprété en détail l'expression "magistrat habilité par la loi à exercer des fonctions judiciaires" (série A no 34, pp. 12-14, paras. 27-31).

• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In particular, the court held that although there was no doubt that the "competent legal authority" referred to in Article 5 § 1(c) was the authority having competence to deal with a criminal charge (the Magistrate in the United Kingdom), in Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 29, Series A no. 34 and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X the Court had made it clear that the function of "a judge or other officer" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention could be carried out by an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and did not necessarily have to be a person with power to conduct the trial of any eventual criminal charge; that, although there was no express power to order release in the 2000 Act as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, such a power must be implied; that, as paragraph 32 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act provided that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of a person was necessary, it therefore contained a requirement of proportionality; that, there was no provision for conditional release on bail within the statutory scheme, an issue which did not arise in the present case but would need to be addressed in any future case in which it arose; that, although paragraph 33(3) of Schedule 8 enabled a judicial authority to exclude an applicant or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing and paragraph 34 permitted information to be withheld from the applicant or anyone representing him, there were a range of tools available to the court to preserve to the necessary extent an adversarial procedure and equality of arms; and, finally, that there was no authority which supported the applicants" contention that Article 5 required that a detained person should be charged well before the expiry of the twenty-eight day period contemplated in the 2000 Act.

  The applicants relied on Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34 as authority for the proposition that "competent legal authority" (in paragraph 1(c) of Article 5) was a synonym, of abbreviated form, for "judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" (in paragraph 3 of Article 5).

• EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94

  ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Before an "officer" can be said to exercise "judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, § 31).
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND

  They relied on the judgments given by the Court in the cases Schiesser v. Switzerland (judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, pp. 12-13, §§ 27-31) and Pauwels v. Belgium (judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 135, p. 18, § 38).

  Before an "officer" can be said to exercise "judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, pp. 13-14, § 31).

• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04

  GALUASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31195/96

  NIKOLOVA c. BULGARIE
• EKMR, 14.01.1998 - 30280/96

  JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14553/89

  BRANNIGAN ET McBRIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 23755/07

  BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.10.2016 - C-453/16

  Özçelik - Polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen - …
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 67696/11

  ADEM SERKAN GÜNDOGDU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 51249/11

  ORAVEC v. CROATIA
• OLG Nürnberg, 12.09.2011 - 1 Ws 390/11

  Haftprüfungsverfahren bei Untersuchungshaft: Auswirkungen einer Verzögerung des …
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 7472/14

  D.L. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 51269/07

  PÁKOZDI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 12.01.1999 - 37388/97

  RIGOPOULOS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 19.11.2013 - 69398/11

  EL KASHIF c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07

  MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02

  CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  BRINCAT v. ITALY
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 14352/04

  JIGA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 34721/09

  KESKINEN AND VELJEKSET KESKINEN OY v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 51776/08

  A. ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 36794/03

  SVETOSLAV HRISTOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

  MODARCA v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02

  KOZIMOR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 73947/01

  ZERVUDACKI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 40262/98

  H.Y. ET HÜ.Y. c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.01.2001 - 25874/94

  KAWKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 3627/06

  GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 32602/08

  STOKLOSA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 38879/03

  SAFAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 55434/00

  BOYLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 67016/01

  DUDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00

  DEPA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.07.2003 - 56552/00

  TELECKI v. POLAND
• EKMR, 01.12.1997 - 32819/96

  C.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 15508/15

  ATRISTAIN GOROSABEL v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 42969/04

  ALI OSMAN ÖZMEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 38713/06

  BEREZA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47297/99

  BÜLBÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 62219/00

  LOYKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 34642/97

  BUZATU c. ROUMANIE
• EKMR, 23.04.1998 - 32220/96

  CHOJAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9362/81

  VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9626/81

  DUINHOF AND DUIJF v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR - 48881/14 (anhängig)

  SENTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 38283/04

  SÜLEYMANOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 17444/04

  KORNEV AND KARPENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 43151/02

  SUURIPAA v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 5849/05

  ALSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  PATSURIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 27193/02

  IGNATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 14348/02

  GARYCKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 36833/97

  H.G. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 30280/96

  JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 01.12.1997 - 30307/97

  B.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28155/95

  KUMAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 08.07.1991 - 15736/89

  D. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 24895/06

  MARZOHL c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 2192/03

  HARKMANN v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 30280/96

  JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.05.1988 - 10208/82

  PAUWELS v. BELGIUM
• EKMR, 18.10.1994 - 18696/91

  ABU SHAER v. AUSTRIA