Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (30)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  The Court observes first of all that the applicant's complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution in that regard was unsuccessful on the merits (see paragraphs 22 to 27 above) (see Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, § 84, 28 October 2010).

  For example, in Boris Popov v. Russia (no. 23284/04, 28 October 2010), it was observed that "the national courts at two levels of jurisdiction examined the claims on the merits but found that the applicant's arrest and detention had been lawful as a matter of Russian law and, as noted by the appeal court, under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention" (§ 84).

• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  The State Liability Act 1969 was traditionally interpreted and applied as not allowing for compensation to be awarded for non-pecuniary damage unless it was related to the deterioration of a person's health (see, for example, Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, § 55, 22 June 2004, and Havala v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47804/99, 13 September 2001).

  In particular, the Court observes that these remedies were not aimed at and capable of redressing the applicant's situation in its essence, that is to say to bring about an end to his continuing deprivation of liberty and rectification of the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114; Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, § 69, 22 June 2004 and, mutatis mutandis, Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no. 18642/04, § 111, 27 September 2007).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  In that respect, the Court reiterates that 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 laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000 XI).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  Indeed, Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in its second limb lays down not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial" but also provides that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000) and judicial authorities cannot be said to have a choice between these two components (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 37, § 4, Series A no. 8.
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  As regards the early stage of the criminal proceedings against him (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 45, ECHR 2006-X) and the restriction of his liberty (by way of contrast, see paragraphs 128 to 141 below), the Court considers that the suspicion against the applicant relied on by the domestic courts was reasonable within the meaning of the previously cited case-law.
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  In particular, the Court observes that these remedies were not aimed at and capable of redressing the applicant's situation in its essence, that is to say to bring about an end to his continuing deprivation of liberty and rectification of the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114; Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, § 69, 22 June 2004 and, mutatis mutandis, Smatana v. the Czech Republic, no. 18642/04, § 111, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, for example, Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, § 74, ECHR 2009-..., and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 179, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 59-60; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  The Court also reiterates that, in order for an arrest on reasonable suspicion to be justified under Article 5 § 1 (c), it is not necessary for the police to have obtained sufficient evidence to bring charges, either at the point of arrest or while the applicant is in custody (see, for example, Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, § 53, ECHR 2004-IV, and Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 53, Series A no. 145-B).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02

  BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 18642/04

  SMATANA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 26.03.2009 - 39298/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 27426/95

  G.B. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  CABALA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  HARIS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 32819/96

  CABALLERO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 28256/95

  M.B. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47804/99

  HAVALA v. SLOVAKIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 44153/06

  CASES OF AYDEMIR AND MICHALKO AGAINST SLOVAKIA

  Application No. 35377/05, judgment of 21 December 2010, final on and 21 March 2011).

  Application No. 35377/05 Aydemir v. Slovakia.

  application no. 35377/05 Michalko v. Slovakia.

  35377/05.

• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  This is particularly so where there is a need to advance new arguments for release or where the arguments are closely connected to the applicant's character and personal situation (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, §§ 91-92, 1 June 2006; Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, § 207, 9 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 159-161, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07

  [ENG]

  The relevant statutory provisions and the existing judicial practice in respect of State liability for damage are summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, §§ 52-61, 23 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, §§ 48-64 with further references, 21 December 2010); Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, §§ 34-46, 21 December 2010); Aydemir v. Slovakia (no. 44153/06, §§ 27-43, 8 February 2011); and Michalák v. Slovakia (no. 30157/03, §§ 92 and 93 with further references, 8 February 2011).

• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications

  As to the question of how civil courts might interfere with the jurisdiction of other authorities established under special legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007; Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, § 88, 21 December 2010; and Aydemir v. Slovakia, no. 44153/06, § 48, 8 February 2011, all with further references), the Court notes yet again the position established by the administrative tribunals and endorsed by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 29, 45 and 62 above) - namely that the execution of prison sentences constituted a continuation and an integral part of the penal procedure, the regulation of which fell within the same area of law.
• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 36989/21

  M.B. v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 26 Having regard to its case-law on the subject and taking account of the fact that in circumstances where minors have been deprived of their liberty, particular expedition and diligence are required on the part of the domestic courts in reviewing the lawfulness of their detention (see, for example, Osváthová, cited above, §§ 47-77; Štetiar and Šutek, cited above, §§ 107-31; Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, §§ 166-71, 21 December 2010; and, mutatis mutandis, G.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, § 167, 17 October 2019), the Court considers that the complaint about the excessive length of judicial review of the applicant's detention discloses a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 41238/05

  [ENG]

  The relevant statutory provisions and judicial practice are summarised in Michalák v. Slovakia (no. 30157/03, § 92, 8 February 2011); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, §§ 48 to 64, 21 December 2010); Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, §§ 37 to 46, 21 December 2010); Pavletic v. Slovakia (no. 39359/98, §§ 50 to 52, 22 June 2004), and Havala v. Slovakia ((dec.), no. 47804/99, 13 September 2001).
• EGMR, 13.03.2025 - 59217/21

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  20271/06 and 17517/07, § 128, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia, no. 45426/06, § 62, 30 November 2010; Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, § 167, 21 December 2010; Osváthová v. Slovakia, no. 15684/05, § 69, 21 December 2010; and Žúbor v. Slovakia, no. 7711/06, §§ 71-73, 6 December 2011.
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 50377/17

  SERIFI v. SLOVAKIA

  Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Osváthová, cited above, § 38; Štetiar and Šutek v. Slovakia, nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 129, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia, no. 45426/06, § 63, 30 November 2010; and Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, § 168, 21 December 2010), the Court considers that the complaint about the excessive length of judicial review of detention upon the applicant's request for release discloses a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 17086/19

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, by contrast, Štetiar and Šutek v. Slovakia, nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 129, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia, no. 45426/06, § 63, 30 November 2010; Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, § 168, 21 December 2010; Osváthová v. Slovakia, no. 15684/05, § 73, 21 December 2010, in which the period of examination of a detention matter by a court of just one judicial instance lasted between thirty-six and ninety days), the Court concludes that the length of the judicial review of detention in the present case was not excessive, especially in view of the fact that the standard of "speediness" is less stringent in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, and that during those proceedings nothing prevented the applicant from lodging a fresh request for release (see, mutatis mutandis, Žúbor, cited above, §§ 88-89).
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 30157/03

  MICHALAK v. SLOVAKIA

  The relevant provisions and judicial practice are summarised in the Court's judgment in the case of Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, §§ 31 to 33, 40 and 47, 23 November 2010); Gál v. Slovakia (no. 45426/06, §§ 19 to 22 and 27, 30 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, §§ 39 to 41, 65 and 77, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 15259/11

  MASLÁK c. SLOVAQUIE
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 7517/10

  DURACKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 44153/06

  AYDEMIR v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 63770/17

  BESINA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 11037/12

  MASLÁK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 21056/08

  MARTIKÁN v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 16502/09

  LOYKA v. SLOVAKIA