Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96
JABLONSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
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).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).
[10]for all the above-mentioned references see the judgment in the case of Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, paragraphs 64-85.
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
The expectation of heavy sentence and the weight of evidence may be relevant but is not as such decisive and the possibility of obtaining guarantees may have to be used to offset any risk (Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, § 10).Indeed, that Article lays down not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial" but also provides that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see, mutatis mutandis, the Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 3, § 3).
- 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 - 633/03
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).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 - 633/03
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).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, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
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).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, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62
Stögmüller ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
According to the Court's case-law, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52). - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64
Matznetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51). - EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87
CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 633/03
Arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44). - EKMR, 20.02.1995 - 22497/93
ASLAN c. TURQUIE
- LSG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 20.04.2011 - L 20 AY 13/11
Sozialhilfe
Nach den letzten verfügbaren Angaben zur Verbrauchergeldparität (vgl. zur Maßgeblichkeit dieses Gesichtspunktes Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe…, Beschluss vom 18.8.2010 - 5 WF 122/10 Rn. 12; Landgericht Potsdam, Beschluss vom 26.11.2003 - 633/03 sowie im Übrigen zur Anpassung bei der Prüfung der wirtschaftlichen Voraus-setzungen Schuster/Streinz a.a.O.) des Statistischen Bundesamtes (abrufbar unter: www.genesis.destatis.de) ist die Kaufkraft von 1, 00 EUR in Serbien um den Faktor von etwa 1, 2 erhöht. - EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 28831/04
KANZI v. THE NETHERLANDS
The Court reiterates that the key purpose of the provisions of Article 5 is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see, amongst others, Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 461, ECHR 2004-VII), and that the question whether a period of pre-trial detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto (see, for instance, Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 31, 4 May 2006). - EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 43701/04
HENDRIKS v. THE NETHERLANDS
The Court reiterates that the key purpose of the provisions of Article 5 is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty (see, amongst others, Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 461, ECHR 2004-VII), and that the question whether a period of pre-trial detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto (see, for instance, Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 31, 4 May 2006).