Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
W. c. SUISSE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 5-3 (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
W. v. SWITZERLAND
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 09.10.1990 - 14379/88
- EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 254-A
Wird zitiert von ... (163) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
In this context regard must be had in particular to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, his links with the State in which he is being prosecuted and his international contacts (see, mutatis mutandis, the Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 39, para. 10).On the last of these dates in particular it acknowledged that the danger of absconding decreased as the length of detention increased, as already noted by the European Court (see, inter alia, the Neumeister judgment cited above, Series A no. 8, p. 39, para. 10).
[ï?ª]ï?ª Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, para.
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
As the Court has already found in the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, the reasonableness of an accused person's continued detention must be assessed in each case according to its special features (Series A no. 7, p. 24, para. 10).It notes that the right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must not hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out their tasks with proper care (see among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Wemhoff and Tomasi judgments, cited above, Series A no. 7, p. 26, para. 17, and no. 241-A, p. 52, para. 102).
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, as the most recent authority, the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, para. 84).The Court points out that the danger of absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the possible sentence; it must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify pre-trial detention (see, as the most recent authority, the Tomasi judgment cited above, Series A no. 241-A, p. 37, para. 98).
- EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87
CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
In the long term, however, the requirements of the investigation no longer suffice - even in such a case - to justify such detention: in the normal course of events the risks alleged diminish with the passing of time as inquiries are effected, statements taken and verifications carried out (see the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, p. 16, para. 43). - EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62
Stögmüller ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
That case-law in fact states that the reasonable time cannot be assessed in abstracto (see, mutatis mutandis, the Stögmüller v. Austria judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, para. 4).
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06
Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair
However, the "reasonable time" cannot be assessed in abstracto: "continued detention can be justified... only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest,... which outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty" (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, § 30). - EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas
As regards the risk of flight, the Court has held that it must be assessed with reference to a number of other factors, such as the accused's character, morals, assets, links with the jurisdiction, and international contacts (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33 Series A no. 254-A; Smirnova, cited above, § 60; and Buzadji, cited above, § 90). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
La poursuite de l'incarcération ne se justifie, dans une espèce donnée, que si des indices concrets révèlent une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant, nonobstant la présomption d'innocence, sur la règle du respect de la liberté individuelle (voir, entre autres, l'arrêt W. c. Suisse du 26 janvier 1993, série A n° 254-A, p. 15, § 30).
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).However, with the passage of time the mere availability of the information, without any evidence to support its veracity, inevitably became less and less relevant, particularly so when the applicant persistently disputed his ability to abscond, alleging that no property had been sold or foreign currency bought and referring to his age, poor health, lack of a valid passport for travel or medical insurance and the fact that he had no relatives and did not own property outside the Tomsk Region to confirm that there was no danger of his absconding (see, by contrast, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).
They should have analysed other pertinent factors, such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings, the applicant's personality, his behaviour before and after the arrest and any other specific indications justifying the fear that he might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed at falsification or destruction of evidence or manipulation of witnesses (see W., cited above, § 36, Series A no. 254-A).
- EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09
Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte
However, with the passage of time the mere availability of that information inevitably became less and less relevant, particularly when the first applicant persistently disputed his ability to abscond, alleging that there was no record of his application for a United Kingdom entry visa and referring to his poor health and family situation to confirm that there was no danger of his absconding (see, by contrast, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).They should have analysed other pertinent factors, such as the advancement of the investigation or judicial proceedings, the first applicant's personality, his behaviour after the arrest and any other specific indications justifying the fear that he might abuse his regained liberty by carrying out acts aimed at the falsification or destruction of evidence or the manipulation of witnesses (see W. v. Switzerland, cited above, § 36, Series A no. 254-A).
- EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 65655/01
Menschenrechte: Überlange Untersuchungshaft, "La Belle"
Im konkreten Fall kann die Fortdauer der Haft nur dann gerechtfertigt sein, wenn es konkrete Anhaltspunkte dafür gibt, dass sie im öffentlichen Interesse wirklich erforderlich ist, und dieses öffentliche Interesse, ungeachtet der Unschuldsvermutung, den Grundsatz der Achtung der Freiheit der Person überwiegt (siehe W. ./. Schweiz , Urteil vom 26. Januar 1993, Serie A Band 254-A, S. 15, Randnr. 30;… Labita , a. a. O., Randnr. 152). - EGMR, 29.07.2004 - 49746/99
Übermäßig lange Dauer der Untersuchungshaft und Verstoß gegen den …
Im konkreten Fall kann die Fortdauer der Haft nur dann gerechtfertigt sein, wenn es bestimmte Anhaltspunkte dafür gibt, dass sie im öffentlichen Interesse wirklich erforderlich ist, und dieses öffentliche Interesse, ungeachtet der Unschuldsvermutung, stärker als der Grundsatz der Achtung der Freiheit der Person zu gewichten ist (siehe u. a. W. ./. Schweiz, Urteil vom 26. Januar 1993, Serie A Band 254-A, S. 15, Nr. 30; Labita ./. Italien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26772/95, Nr. 152, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04
ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
In particular, regard must be had to the character of the person involved, his morals, his assets, etc. (see W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 33, Series A no. 254-A).While the court does not lose sight of the fact that it took the trial court approximately a year and a half to examine the applicant's case, it reiterates that the right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must not hinder the efforts of the courts to carry out their tasks with proper care (see among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 42, Series A no. 254-A).
- OLG Karlsruhe, 04.10.2021 - Ausl 301 AR 86/21
Bewilligung der Auslieferung unter Berücksichtigung mitgliedsstaatlicher …
Mit Erlass des Eröffnungsbeschlusses am 17.06.2021 wurde der Verfolgte vielmehr unter verschiedenen Auflagen, trotz der nunmehr Ende November 2021 anstehenden Hauptverhandlung, "provisorisch" aus der Untersuchungshaft entlassen, offensichtlich, um die Rechte des Verfolgten aus § 5 Abs. 3 EMRK zu wahren und keinen schadensersatzpflichtigen Konventionsverstoß (wegen der Verletzung des Beschleunigungsgebots) zu begehen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 6.11.2014 - 67522/09 - Ereren ./. Deutschland = NJW 2015, 3773; EGMR, Urteil vom 29.07.2004 - 49746/99 Cevizovic/Deutschland = NJW 2005, 3125; EGMR, 1993, Serie A, Bd. 254 Nr. 30 = ÖJZ 1993, 562 - W./Schweiz; EGMR, Slg. 2000-IV Nr. 152 - Labita ./. Italien; EGMR, Slg. 2006-XII Nr. 35 - Chraidi ./. Deutschland; EGMR, Urteil vom 26.4.2011 - 59301/08 Nr. 49 - Tinner/Schweiz; BVerfGE 75, 1ff und Beschluss vom 17.02.2009, 2 BvR 257/09; Senat, NStZ 2005, 351 und StraFo 2007, 477; OLG Hamm, Beschluss vom 28.12.2007 in StV 2008, 648 und OLG Hamm, Beschluss vom 10.09.2013 - -2 Ausl 95/11 -, juris). - EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 56271/00
SARDINAS ALBO v. ITALY
They referred, on this point, to the findings of the Court in the cases of Stögmüller, Wemhoff and W. v. Switzerland, where delays similar to those imputable to the Italian authorities had not been considered excessive (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9; Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7; W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A).Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30, and Pantano v. Italy, no. 60851/00, § 66, 6 November 2003).
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 65745/01
Beschleunigungsgrundsatz im Haftverfahren (doppelte Strafmilderung bei Verletzung …
- EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21
NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13
MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
- EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29044/06
SHABANI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 11287/03
LELIEVRE c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
DUDEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07
LUKOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 5453/08
YURIY YAKOVLEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 23042/02
CABALA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 3489/03
CEGLOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 77832/01
DZYRUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 23755/07
BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06
ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 57541/09
VALERIY SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07
FRUNI v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04
CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04
BAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 48977/09
ARUTYUNYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08
PYATKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 20197/03
MIMINOSHVILI v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 57180/09
BERNOBIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03
PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
KOKOSHKINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 38971/06
KORSHUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01
CZARNECKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.10.2002 - 57861/00
ABSANDZE contre la GEORGIE
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 46793/06
BULDASHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01
VLASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 46082/99
KLYAKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 4493/04
LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 22386/04
CONTOLORU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 62631/11
GÁL v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 57319/10
SOPIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10
DERVISHI v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 59301/08
TINNER c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 33682/05
KAROLY v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 41545/06
SEGEDA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09
PERICA OREB v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10
HAGYÓ v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09
KOROLEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09
TRIFKOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 28018/05
STRELETS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 33762/05
ERIMESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 67542/01
GUSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2008 - 20817/04
NART v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03
SILIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 42940/06
GOVORUSHKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 24552/02
MELNIKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02
KOZIMOR v. POLAND
- EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 15067/02
CZAJKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 13425/02
MICHTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 40159/98
TEMEL ET TASKIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13
SOS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 38415/13
NENAD KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 75068/12
DRAGIN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03
ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 56111/12
ORBAN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 68435/10
HUNVALD v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 28020/05
YEVGENIY GUSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 59860/10
ÖNER AKTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05
SHIKUTA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11
MKHITARYAN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 14807/08
MIKHAIL GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 33123/08
SIZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 7983/06
SZEPESI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02
SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04
AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 20315/04
WIERZBA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 18123/04
MATSKUS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 16308/02
PECHEUR c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05
PIOTR BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 32849/04
MUCHA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 47043/99
MEHMET YAVUZ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 40991/98
KEMAL KOÇAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 34333/02
BORGMANN v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02
VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 6334/02
DOLASINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 67016/01
DUDA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
DEPA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01
DOMBEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 66004/01
VAIVADA v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 24552/02
MELNIKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 75274/01
CALLEJA v. MALTA
- EGMR, 20.01.2004 - 34221/96
D.P. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 39324/98
DEMIREL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 60268/00
UZEYIR contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
MIGON v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.02.2001 - 33079/96
SZELOCH v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 27143/95
CONTRADA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92
VAN DER TANG c. ESPAGNE
- EKMR, 29.06.1994 - 20602/92
SZÜCS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 48982/08
YURIY RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 16115/13
MARGARETIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 60468/08
ROSSI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07
SUSLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 16854/03
TSARKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02
RYDZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 19177/03
SCHMALZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 29437/02
LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02
MORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 33198/04
RUCINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 19583/05
RYCKIE v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02
HESSE v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 26876/03
TRZNADEL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 37766/02
PIOTR KUC v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 18368/02
BUTA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 26918/02
TRZCIALKOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 64284/01
OLEKSY v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.08.2006 - 49048/99
HUSEYIN ESEN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04
PASINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 5270/04
DRABEK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 43748/98
WIENSZTAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 42554/98
TEKIN ET BALTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 15141/03
CZERBINSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 37641/97
MATWIEJCZUK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 38654/97
GORAL v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 35489/97
SALAPA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 34052/96
OLSTOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 14.09.2000 - 34447/97
SZOFER v. POLAND
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97
BARFUSS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 34994/97
WALTER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2000 - 35207/97
AGGIATO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 35220/97
BOICHINOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 7087/04
ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 16986/10
ÇELIK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 7328/03
KAPAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 32420/03
MURAT KAÇAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 37326/04
TERESZCZENKO v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 38872/03
BOGDANOWICZ v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.10.2003 - 76024/01
RAPACCIUOLO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 38764/97
OUAJIL contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 39615/99
MOTIERE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.10.1999 - 37073/97
RICHARD contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.07.1999 - 42296/98
LOWRY v. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 30.03.1999 - 37369/97
BOUT contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.03.1999 - 34033/96
DAUGY contre la FRANCE
- EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28155/95
KUMAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 28.06.1995 - 20231/92
W.S. v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 37311/08
ROMAN PETROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 7390/07
KEVIN O'DOWD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06
SHENOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05
PAWLAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 28.03.2002 - 25415/94
KLAMECKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 16.11.2000 - 41852/98
VACCARO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 17.03.1997 - 21802/93
MULLER v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 37912/04
ÇAYAN BILGIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2001 - 39765/98
WARIDEL contre la SUISSE