Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,30766
EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,30766)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.02.2011 - 36988/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,30766)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Februar 2011 - 36988/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,30766)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,30766) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Sonstiges

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 2011, 3017
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    In this respect, arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 142, 11 July 2006) but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention (Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 179, 22 December 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

    Matznetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    The Court has identified four basic grounds upon which pre-trial detention may be justified: the danger of absconding (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
  • EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

    ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    In this respect, arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 142, 11 July 2006) but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention (Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 179, 22 December 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

    Stögmüller ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    The Court has identified four basic grounds upon which pre-trial detention may be justified: the danger of absconding (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    The Court has identified four basic grounds upon which pre-trial detention may be justified: the danger of absconding (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff, cited above, § 14) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, § 9) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
  • EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

    YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    The Court recalls that under the second limb of Article 5 § 3, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State is able to show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons justifying his continuing detention (YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
  • EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

    QUINN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    The Court recalls that it has accepted on a number of occasions that some delay in implementing a decision to release a detainee is understandable and often inevitable in view of practical considerations relating to the running of the courts and the observance of particular formalities (Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 17, § 42; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1191, § 25 in fine; and Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    In this connection, the Court recalls that in Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 59, ECHR 2000-IV, it recognised that a suspect may validly be detained at the beginning of proceedings on the basis of statements made by an informer (pentiti).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

    O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07
    Similarly, the Court found in O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, ECHR 2001-X that information passed on at a police briefing by informers who identified the applicant as one of a number of persons suspected of involvement in a specific terrorist event was sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence.
  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

    SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    Le Gouvernement note que, dans l'affaire Ignatenco c. Moldova, (no 36988/07, § 70, 8 février 2011), la Cour a déjà rejeté comme manifestement mal fondé un grief similaire.
  • EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 34382/07

    TRIPADUS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    Les dispositions internes pertinentes en l'espèce sont résumées dans les affaires Sarban c. Moldova (no 3456/05, §§ 51-56, 4 octobre 2005), Musuc c. Moldova (no 42440/06, § 22, 6 novembre 2007) et Ignatenco c. Moldova (no 36988/07, §§ 53 et 54, 8 février 2011).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07

    NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

    Les dispositions internes pertinentes en l'espèce sont résumées dans les affaires Sarban c. Moldova (no 3456/05, §§ 51-56, 4 octobre 2005), Musuc c. Moldova (no 42440/06, § 22, 6 novembre 2007) et Ignatenco c. Moldova (no 36988/07, §§ 53 et 54, 8 février 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht