Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARYCKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 14348/02
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02
• EGMR, 11.09.2013 - 14348/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  As from that date he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (cf. Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).

  Continued detention therefore 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 laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110-111 with further references, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  The Court has considered that in a democratic society it is inevitable that information is imparted when a serious charge of misconduct in office is brought (see Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  Nevertheless, whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see, inter alia, Adolf v. Austria, judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, pp. 17-19, §§ 36-41 and Daktaras, cited above, § 41).

 
• EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  However, this circumstance could not justify any use of words chosen by the officials in their interviews with the press (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 50, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p.37, § 4), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).