Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the length of pre-trial detention Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 with regard to correspondence Violation of Art. 8 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  The prosecutor's submissions were put on the record of the session (cf. Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, judgment of 19 October 2000, §§ 69-73).

  In that regard, it would in particular refer to its judgments in the cases of Niedbala v. Poland (cited above §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000) and Wloch v. Poland (no. 27785/95, §§ 125-132; 19 October 2000, ECHR-2000-XI, p. 35-36; §§ 125-131), in which it has repeated the criteria established in its case-law in respect of the "fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" and has emphasised that one of the essential features of such a procedure is equality of arms between the prosecutor and the detained person.

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  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, §§ 110-111 with further references, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  The applicant, relying on a number of examples from the Court's case law (in particular, the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43), maintained that there could be no doubt that the prosecutor who had detained him on remand had not offered guarantees of independence from the executive and the parties, as required under Article 5 § 3.

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Pour déterminer si une ingérence est « nécessaire, dans une société démocratique ", la Cour tient compte de la marge d'appréciation laissée aux autorités nationales, mais l'État défendeur reste tenu de démontrer l'existence d'un besoin social impérieux sous-jacent à l'ingérence (Kucera c. Slovaquie, no 48666/99, § 127, 17 juillet 2007 ; et Klamecki c. Pologne (no 2), no 31583/96, § 144, 3 avril 2003).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).

 
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that there was a particular reason to prevent the applicant from having conjugal visits with his wife (see, by contrast, Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 130, 17 July 2007; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 92 et seq., 11 October 2005; and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 135, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10

  COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that there was a particular reason to prevent the applicant from having conjugal visits from his wife (see, by contrast, Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 135, 3 April 2003; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 92 et seq., 11 October 2005; and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 130, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA

  They relied on, most notably, the cases of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X), Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2) (no. 31583/96, 3 April 2003), and Aliev v. Ukraine (no. 41220/98, 29 April 2003) to argue that such a right could not be derived from the Court's case-law.
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  However, it is an essential part of a detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see, among other authorities, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 123, 12 June 2008; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-...(extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland, (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).