Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 20204/02

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).

Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 20204/02

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-...).

Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 20204/02

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.

Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 20204/02

In this respect, it recalls that continuation of detention cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).