Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (61)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  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, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  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 [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  (b) Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI, both with reference to Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22).

 
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  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, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  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 [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).

• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00

  DEPA v. POLAND

  A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

  It does not appear therefore that his case presented particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the perpetrator as would undoubtedly have been the case had the proceedings concerned organised crime (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 37, 4 May 2006; Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 36, 4 May 2006).

  In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in which the prolongation of his detention was examined satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Telecki v. Poland, (dec.), no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 47, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 12786/02

  KROWIAK v. POLAND

  A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

  It does not appear therefore that his case presented particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the perpetrator, as would undoubtedly have been the case had the proceedings concerned organised crime (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 37, 4 May 2006; Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 36, 4 May 2006).

  The Court recalls that the principles relevant in the present case which emerge from the Court's case law on Article 5 § 4 were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998 and Telecki v. Poland, (dec.), no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 47, 4 May 2006; Depa v. Poland, no. 62324/00, § 49, 12 December 2006).

• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02

  KOZIMOR v. POLAND

  A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgments in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

  In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in which the prolongation of his detention was examined satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Telecki v. Poland, (dec.), no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 47, 4 May 2006).

 
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 36246/97

  RUSIECKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.

  Moreover, as demonstrated by the ever increasing number of judgments in which the Court has found Poland to be in breach of Article 5 § 3 in respect of applicants involved in organised crime, the present case is by no means an isolated example of the imposition of unjustifiably lengthy detention but a confirmation of a practice found to be contrary to the Convention (see, among many other examples, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006; Kakol v. Poland, no. 3994/03, 6 September 2007; Malikowski v. Poland, no. 15154/03, 16 October 2007).

• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 10273/02

  MARCHOWSKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.

  The Court reiterates that the principles relevant in the present case which emerge from the Court's case-law on Article 5 § 4 have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998; Telecki v. Poland, (dec.), no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003; Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 47, 4 May 2006; and Depa v. Poland, no. 62324/00, § 49, 12 December 2006).

• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 51521/99

  KUCHARSKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006; and G.K. v. Poland, no. 38816/97, §§ 64-67, 20 January 2004.

  In connection with the proceedings for review of the applicant's detention under the regime of the 1997 Code, the Court observes that the relevant principles had been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see mutatis mutandis, Telecki v. Poland, (dec.), no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 47, 4 May 2006; Depa v. Poland, no. 62324/00, § 49, 12 December 2006).

• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 18967/02

  PISARKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.

  It does not appear therefore that his case presented particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the perpetrator, as it would undoubtedly have done if the proceedings had concerned organised crime (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 37, 4 May 2006, and Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 36, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 32849/04

  MUCHA v. POLAND

  A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

  The Court will therefore take into account in assessing the conduct of the authorities in the present case the special circumstances deriving from the fact that it concerned a member of a criminal gang (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 20200/02

  KWIATKOWSKI v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-45, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.

  In these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the instant case presented particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the perpetrators as would undoubtedly have been the case had the proceedings concerned organised crime (see Celejewski v Poland, no. 17584/04, § 37, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 19177/03

  SCHMALZ v. POLAND

  A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

  The Court will therefore take into account in assessing the conduct of the authorities in the present case the special circumstances deriving from the fact that it concerned a member of a criminal gang (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 37766/02

  PIOTR KUC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 52683/15

  ZAGALSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 26294/08

  RADAWIEC c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 37245/13

  LABUDEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 33078/09

  TEODORCZUK c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08

  PYATKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09

  KOROLEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 42770/21

  MERO?ƒ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 14630/22

  MARIA?ƒSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 42239/02

  STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2007 - 15067/02

  CZAJKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 43924/12

  ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 43611/02

  BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  SLUSARCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  ARTEMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 32501/09

  ZIRAJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 39502/08

  POPENDA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 39912/06

  RUPRECHT v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  RYBACKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 54476/00

  PYRAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 24254/03

  RABAN v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 14255/02

  GLADCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 4657/02

  POLAKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 59526/00

  KASZCZYNIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 19187/21

  ROSENOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 568/19

  MYSLIWIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 71760/11

  REMBAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 15612/13

  MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 36321/08

  SOLOBODOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 18120/10
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 35630/02

  CHERNYSHOV v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 9382/05

  ZELAZKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 25413/04

  HOLOWCZAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 20138/03

  BOBEL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 29437/02

  LEWANDOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 19445/10

  LEJK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 1095/12

  KRASZYNSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 10861/13

  JANKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 31488/07

  GORAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 39469/02

  GUZIUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 37149/02

  ROZMARYNOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 4646/02

  MARCZUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 22755/04

  CHRUSCINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  TONDERYS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  WEDLER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 22647/19

  RUDNICKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  CHYLA v. POLAND