Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
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
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2011, 3017
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
- EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 47306/07
NINESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA