Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOS v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SOS v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  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; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 139, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  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; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 139, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  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, amongst many others, Idalov, cited above, § 140; Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VII; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 67, Series A no. 224; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 42, Series A no. 175; and Krikunov v. Russia, no. 13991/05, § 36, 4 December 2014).

 
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  In addition, detention will continue to be legitimate only if public order actually remains threatened; its continuation cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see, for example, Kemmache v. France, 27 November 1991, § 52, Series A no. 218, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 91, Series A no. 241-A).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  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; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 139, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 26211/13

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 3155/15

  GASPAR c. PORTUGAL

  Les justifications que la Cour a jugées « pertinentes'et « suffisantes'(en plus de l'existence d'une raison plausible de soupçonner une personne d'avoir commis une infraction) dans sa jurisprudence incluent le risque de fuite, le risque de pression sur les témoins ou d'altération de preuves, le risque de collusion, le risque de récidive, le risque de trouble à l'ordre public, ou encore la nécessité de protéger la personne faisant l'objet de la mesure privative de liberté (Buzadji c. République de Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, § 88, CEDH 2016 (extraits), et les références qui y sont citées ; en particulier, s'agissant du risque de récidive, voir, par exemple, Knebl c. République tchèque, no 20157/05, § 66, 28 octobre 2010, Taranenko c. Russie, no 19554/05, § 54, 15 mai 2014, et Sos c. Croatie, no 26211/13, § 95, 1er décembre 2015, et, pour ce qui est du risque de pression sur les témoins, voir, par exemple, Rossi c. France, no 60468/08, § 81, 18 octobre 2012).