Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RICCARDI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  The Court shares the Government's view that there is no causal link between the violations found and the pecuniary damage claimed (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 221, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  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 Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 61, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  Moreover, the court orders maintaining detention nearly always used identical, even stereotyped, wording and relied repeatedly on the same criteria, a practice which cannot be considered to comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Mansur v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 55, Series A no. 319-B; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 109, ECHR 2006-III (extracts); and Tiron, cited above, § 39).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  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 detention pending trial (see, mutatis mutandis, Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  The Court observes that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9), and the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  The Court observes that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9), and the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  In these circumstances, the lapse of time between the Court of Appeal's decision on 2 July 2003 and the issuing of the new interlocutory judgment of 4 July 2003 cannot be considered as rendering the applicant's detention arbitrary (compare also Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 49 and Erkalo v. the Netherlands, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, § 57).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  The Court observes that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9), and the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  It has not therefore been established that, in extending the applicant's detention after 16 June 2004, the domestic courts acted in bad faith, or that they neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001, and Benham, cited above, § 47; compare also Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 3048/04

  The Court observes that its case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for placing a person suspected of having committed an offence in pre-trial detention: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9), and the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207, and Hendriks v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43701/04, 5 July 2007).

• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 4140/04

  ROMAN v. ROMANIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Romania, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention, lack of adequate medical treatment and excessive length of proceedings (see, for example, Riccardi v. Romania, no. 3048/04, 3 April 2012, Lautaru v. Romania, no. 13099/04, 18 October 2011, Flamînzeanu v. Romania, no. 56664/08, 12 April 2011, Iamandi v. Romania, no. 25867/03, 1 June 2010, and Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, ECHR-2009 (extracts)).