Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIPENS v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  The Court notes that, according to its case-law, in a situation where the person was still detained, an effective remedy under Article 5 § 3 should be able to lead to the lifting of the detention order (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 45, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 14861/89

  LALA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  According to the Court's established case-law, it is of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended, both at trial and on appeal (see, amongst others, Lala v. the Netherlands, no. 14861/89, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 297-A).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  It must then examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust domestic remedies (Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 59, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05

  The Court reiterates that where an accused persons" pre-trial detention is broken into various non-consecutive periods and where there are no obstacles to lodging a complaint about the pre-trial detention while they are at liberty, those non-consecutive periods should be assessed separately (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 6, Series A no. 8, and, more recently, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 129, 22 May 2012).

• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06

  DAVIDOVS v. LATVIA

  It shall therefore dismiss, similarly as in Ķipens v. Latvia (dec.), no. 5436/05, § 47, 5 March 2013, the argument that a later compensatory remedy, as argued by the Government, could have been adequate and sufficient in the particular case.