Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  QING v. PORTUGAL

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  QING v. PORTUGAL

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 69861/11

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  The Court has established in its case-law that in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in treatment of persons in analogous or relevantly similar situations (see, inter alia, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV, and Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, § 66, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  Such a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 81, ECHR 2009; and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 42, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  Such a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has no objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 81, ECHR 2009; and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 42, ECHR 2009).

 
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are actual indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see Idalov, cited above, § 139, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  For Article 14 to become applicable, it suffices that the facts of a case fall within the ambit of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 84, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  Where such grounds are "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, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  For Article 14 to become applicable, it suffices that the facts of a case fall within the ambit of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 84, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  Arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 69861/11

  However, since under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention failure to comply with domestic law may entail a breach of the Convention, it follows that the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether this law has been complied with (Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006, and Shteyn (Stein) v. Russia, no. 23691/06, §§ 89 and 94, 18 June 2009).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 2366/07

  SUSLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06

  SHTEYN (STEIN) v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20

  STAYKOV c. BULGARIE

  Le caractère raisonnable de la durée de détention 82. La Cour observe d'emblée que cette durée de détention en l'espèce pourrait être sérieusement préoccupante et exiger une justification très solide (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et ? tvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018).