Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKELSONS v. LATVIA

  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 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIĶELSONS v. LATVIA

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

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

• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  This means, in particular, that a detainee should have access to the documents in the investigation file which are essential for assessing the lawfulness of his detention (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 124, 9 July 2009; Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151; and Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  Referring to the cases of Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 38884/97, § 97, 30 January 2003) and Shishkov v. Bulgaria (no. 38822/97, § 77, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)), and other case-law of the Court, the applicant argued that, in view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned, proceedings conducted under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention should in principle meet, to the largest extent possible under the circumstances of an ongoing investigation, the basic requirements of a fair trial.
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  This means, in particular, that a detainee should have access to the documents in the investigation file which are essential for assessing the lawfulness of his detention (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 124, 9 July 2009; Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151; and Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).

 
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  Referring to the case of Svipsta v. Latvia (no. 66820/01, § 137, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)), the Government further argued that, in view of the early stage of the investigation, the confidentiality of the information obtained had to be ensured to avoid any obstruction to the proper conduct of the investigation.
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 37975/97

  GRAUZINIS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  In such situations, where the lawfulness of detention pending trial is examined, the proceedings must be adversarial and always ensure equality of arms between the parties (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and Grauzinis v. Lithuania, no. 37975/97, § 31, 10 October 2000).
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  Referring to the cases of Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 38884/97, § 97, 30 January 2003) and Shishkov v. Bulgaria (no. 38822/97, § 77, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)), and other case-law of the Court, the applicant argued that, in view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned, proceedings conducted under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention should in principle meet, to the largest extent possible under the circumstances of an ongoing investigation, the basic requirements of a fair trial.

• EGMR - 15439/23 (anhängig)

  UÄ"MANS v. LATVIA

  In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case, notably in terms of access to the case materials on the basis of which the applicant's detention was justified (see, X.Y. v. Hungary, no. 43888/08, §§ 50-52, 19 March 2013; Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, no. 1346/12, §§ 72-78, 20 February 2014; MiÄ·elsons v. Latvia, no. 46413/10, §§ 74-82, 3 November 2015; and Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 73-85, 19 January 2016)?.