Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PATSURIA v. GEORGIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 30779/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  Thus, the period of his detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention is nine months and twelve days (see, amongst many others, Wemhoff c. Allemagne, arrêt du 27 juin 1968, série A no 7, p. 23, § 9; Davtian v. Georgia (dec.), no. 73241/01, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  As to the risk of hampering the establishment of the truth, the Court notes that it was just bluntly stated, without any relation to the specific circumstances of the case (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Nikolov, cited above, § 73).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  All his complaints were made to the competent domestic courts (see paragraph 21 above), who were best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case, and to interpret and apply the rules of substantive and procedural law (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).

 
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  All his complaints were made to the competent domestic courts (see paragraph 21 above), who were best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case, and to interpret and apply the rules of substantive and procedural law (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, pp. 32-33, § 32; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, § 34).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  It never assessed the nature of that risk against the arguments put forward by the applicant in support of his request for release - his cooperation with the prosecution, the voluntary submission of documentation and his appearance for interrogation upon request, his reliability and good reputation, etc. Nor was the severity of the sentence examined against any other relevant circumstances of the case which might either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it could not justify detention on remand (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 181, ECHR 2005-...(extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  However, it cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of an eventual sentence and must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  The applicant did not complain that the content of the information conveyed was insufficient (cf. Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 413, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  As to the second limb of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 1 (c) that the PGO, pursuant to Article 28 § 1 (m) of the CCP, should not have initiated criminal proceedings against him, the Court recalls that the appropriateness of the institution of a criminal prosecution usually falls outside the scope of the Court's review (see Artner v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1992, Series A no. 242-A, § 21).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  Moreover, since the proceedings of 8 and 13 May 2004 both took place at oral hearings attended by the applicant and his advocates, they had ample opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the prosecutor's submissions (see, Galuashvili, decision cited above; Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31).