Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 39084/97

As to the assertion that the statements of Mr Hamanov would be insufficient to secure the conviction of the applicant, the Court observes that the standard imposed by Article 5 § 1 (c) does not presuppose that the facts which raise a suspicion should be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-X).

Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 39084/97

It refers to its and the former Commission's constant case-law according to which the date of introduction of an application is considered to be, in principle, the date of the first letter indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving at least a summary indication of the nature of the complaints to be made, not the date of its registration or the date figuring on the stamp affixed by the Court's registry upon its receipt (see X v. Ireland, no. 8299/78, Commission decision of 10 October 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 22, p. 51, at pp.

Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 39084/97

25067/94 and 25068/94, § 30, ECHR 1999-IV, and Korkmaz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42589/98, 5 September 2002, unreported).

Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 39084/97

Since Article 5 § 4 of the Convention provides a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see M.A. and M.M. v. France (dec.), no. 39671/98, ECHR 1999-VIII), the Court will examine the complaint only under Article 5 § 4.