Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CABALA v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  Where a person is kept in detention pending the determination of a criminal charge against him, the fact of his detention is a factor to be considered in assessing whether the requirement of a decision on the merits within a reasonable time has been met (see, for example, Abdoella v. the Netherlands, judgment of 25 November 1992, Series A no. 248-A, p.17, § 24 and also Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 83, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  Finally, it must also be taken into account that while the applicant's requests for release of July 2001 were still pending, he was by law prevented from submitting a new request for release without relying on new facts (see Singh, cited above, § 76, and Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 2, § 56).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  According to the Court's case-law concerning Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, a periodic judicial review must, if it is to satisfy the requirements of those provisions, comply with both the substantive and the procedural rules of the national legislation and moreover be conducted in conformity with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual against arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  Furthermore, the Court finds it appropriate to point out that the remedies referred to by the Government in the present case are remedies before civil courts, which undoubtedly have no jurisdiction to order release or otherwise directly remedy the impugned state of affairs (see Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, §§ 69 and 72, 22 June 2004, and also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  These remedies are by definition aimed at obtaining compensation and might possibly be of relevance under paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 44, and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 34, § 79) which, however, the applicant did not invoke.
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  These remedies are by definition aimed at obtaining compensation and might possibly be of relevance under paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 44, and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 34, § 79) which, however, the applicant did not invoke.
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8607/02

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002 IX).