Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PIOTR BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  In another recent case (Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006) the Court found the delays of 36, 29 and 26 days to be incompatible with Article 5 § 4, stressing that the entire duration of the appeal proceedings was attributable to the authorities.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  The Court reiterates that only legal costs and expenses found to have been actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable as to quantum are recoverable under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 220).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00

  ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  On the other hand, in Rokhlina v. Russia (no. 54071/00, § 79, 7 April 2005), where the global duration of the proceedings was 41 days for two levels of jurisdiction, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  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 Labita v. Italy, no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 3501/02

  RYBCZYNSCY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, 3 October 2006; and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, 10 October 2006.
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 69129/01

  BIALAS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, 3 October 2006; and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, 10 October 2006.
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  Such detention cannot be considered on the same footing as a detention under Article 5 § 1 (c), with which Article 5 § 3 is solely concerned, as it applies only to persons in custody awaiting their trial (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9, and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 54, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  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).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  The Court reiterates that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see, for example, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 10211/12

  Sicherungsverwahrung für deutschen Sexualmörder gebilligt

  Wenn ein Staat jedoch eine zweite Instanz vorsieht, muss er Personen, denen die Freiheit entzogen ist, im Rechtsmittelverfahren grundsätzlich dieselben Garantien zugestehen wie in der ersten Instanz (…siehe Navarra ./. Frankreich, 23. November 1993, Rdnr. 28, Serie A Band 273-B, Khudobin ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 59696/00, Rdnr. 124, ECHR 2006-XII (Auszüge), und S.T.S. ./. Niederlande, a.a.O., Rdnr. 43), auch im Hinblick auf die Zügigkeit der Überprüfung einer durch ein unteres Gericht angeordneten Freiheitsentziehung in der Rechtsmittelinstanz (siehe Piotr Baranowski./. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39742/05, Rdnr. 63, 2. Oktober 2007).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 27025/13

  KARGAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Une analyse de sa jurisprudence révèle que, dans les procédures de recours qui se déroulent devant des juridictions ordinaires et qui font suite à une ordonnance de placement en détention prise par un tribunal de première instance, des retards de plus de trois à quatre semaines dont les autorités doivent être tenues pour responsables sont susceptibles de soulever un problème du point de vue de l'exigence de célérité énoncée à l'article 5 § 4, à moins que ce délai de contrôle plus long ne soit exceptionnellement justifié dans les circonstances de l'affaire (voir, entre autres, G.B. c. Suisse, no 27426/95, §§ 27 et 32-39, 30 novembre 2000 - où la Cour a dit qu'un délai de trente-deux jours pour qu'un procureur fédéral et un tribunal fédéral se prononcent sur la demande d'élargissement d'un requérant était contraire à l'article 5 § 4 -, et Lebedev, précité, §§ 98-102 - où la Cour a dit que les autorités étaient responsables de vingt-sept jours sur le délai total qu'il a fallu à la cour d'appel pour statuer sur la demande de remise en liberté du requérant, ce qui était incompatible avec l'article 5 § 4 - ; pour d'autres exemples, voir Piotr Baranowski c. Pologne, no 39742/05, § 64, 2 octobre 2007, et Shcherbina c. Russie, no 41970/11, § 65, 26 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  DERVISHI v. CROATIA

  Against the above background, the Court considers that there was no causal connection between the applicant's conviction in another set of criminal proceedings and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009) and that his pre-trial detention in the proceedings at issue never coincided with serving any prison sentence following his conviction in separate criminal proceedings (see, by contrast, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 14, 45, 2 October 2007).

 
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  From 22 May 2014 the applicant was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, § 45, 2 October 2007; and Dragin v. Croatia, no. 75068/12, § 111, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  PERICA OREB v. CROATIA

  Against the above background, the Court considers that, in the present case, there was no causal connection between the applicant's conviction in another set of criminal proceedings and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009 and Dervishi, cited above, § 125) and that his pre-trial detention in the proceedings at issue never coincided with serving any prison sentence following his conviction in separate criminal proceedings (see, by contrast, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 14, 45, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 10932/18

  ZUBEL v. POLAND

  In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant's detention on remand can be divided into two separate periods for the purpose of assessing its allegedly excessive length under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 45-46, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 18480/06

  KURATOW c. POLOGNE

  Compte tenu de sa jurisprudence en la matière (Piotr Baranowski c. Pologne, no 39742/05, 2 octobre 2007, §§ 65-68 ; Lewicki c. Pologne, no 28993/05, 6 octobre 2009, §§ 63-67 ; Wedler, ci-dessus, § 116 ; Pyrak c. Pologne, no 54476/00, 12 février 2008, § 67), la Cour estime que les délais mis en cause par le requérant n'ont pas été excessifs.
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 13394/18

  MIKOCIUNAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  From 5 July 2018 the applicants were detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, § 45, 2 October 2007; and Dragin v. Croatia, no. 75068/12, § 111, 24 July 2014).