Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,29730
EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97 (https://dejure.org/2003,29730)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.01.2003 - 38822/97 (https://dejure.org/2003,29730)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Januar 2003 - 38822/97 (https://dejure.org/2003,29730)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,29730) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • HRR Strafrecht

    Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c EMRK; Art. 5 Abs. 3 Satz 1 EMRK; Art. 5 Abs. 4 EMRK; Art. 6 EMRK; Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG; Art. 20 Abs. 3 GG; § 112 StPO; § 117 StPO; § 147 StPO
    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben ermächtigte Person; Unabhängigkeit; Unparteilichkeit; Nikolova); Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Anspruch auf ein Urteil innerhalb angemessener Zeit oder auf Haftentlassung); Recht auf Freiheit ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SHISHKOV v. BULGARIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to right to be brought promptly before a judge No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to length of pre-trial detention Violation of Art. 5-4 on account of lack of access to file Violation of Art. 5-4 with regard ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CHICHKOV c. BULGARIE [Extraits]

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 5-3 quant au droit à être ausssitôt traduit devant un juge Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 Violation de l'art. 5-3 en ce qui concerne la durée de la détention provisoire Violation de l'art. 5-4 faute d'accès au dossier Violation de l'art. 5-4 ...

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (141)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    In particular, the rationale underlying the requirements of speediness and periodic judicial review at reasonable intervals within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 and the Court's case-law is that a detainee should not run the risk of remaining in detention long after the moment when his deprivation of liberty has become unjustified (see, as regards detention falling under paragraph 1 (c) of Article 5, Bezicheri v. Italy , judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164, Series A no. 114 and, as regards other types of deprivation of liberty, Weeks v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 2 March 1987, Musial v. Poland (GC), no. 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Stafford v. the United Kingdom (GC), no 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

    LAMY c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect's lawyer (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium , judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29, Nikolova, cited above, § 58, and Garcia Alva v. Germany , no. 23541/94, 13 February 2001, unreported, §§ 39-43).
  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

    DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    Nonetheless, the Court must also examine the impugned decision under paragraph 4 of Article 5 as the guarantee afforded by that provision is of a different order from, and additional to, that provided by paragraph 3 (see de Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v. the Netherlands , judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, pp. 25-26, § 57).
     
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    Furthermore, a limitation will violate the Convention if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Golder v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 18-20, §§ 38-40, Levages Prestations Services v. France , judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII; Edificaciones March Galego S.A. v. Spain , judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 290, § 34; Khalfaoui v. France , no. 34791/97, §§ 35 and 36, ECHR 1999-IX; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    The practical realities and specific circumstances of the detained person's position must be taken into consideration (see ÿonka v. Belgium , no. 51564/99, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2002-I).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy (GC), no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

    STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    In particular, the rationale underlying the requirements of speediness and periodic judicial review at reasonable intervals within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 and the Court's case-law is that a detainee should not run the risk of remaining in detention long after the moment when his deprivation of liberty has become unjustified (see, as regards detention falling under paragraph 1 (c) of Article 5, Bezicheri v. Italy , judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164, Series A no. 114 and, as regards other types of deprivation of liberty, Weeks v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 2 March 1987, Musial v. Poland (GC), no. 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Stafford v. the United Kingdom (GC), no 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

    MUSIAL c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    In particular, the rationale underlying the requirements of speediness and periodic judicial review at reasonable intervals within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 and the Court's case-law is that a detainee should not run the risk of remaining in detention long after the moment when his deprivation of liberty has become unjustified (see, as regards detention falling under paragraph 1 (c) of Article 5, Bezicheri v. Italy , judgment of 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164, Series A no. 114 and, as regards other types of deprivation of liberty, Weeks v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 2 March 1987, Musial v. Poland (GC), no. 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II, and Stafford v. the United Kingdom (GC), no 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 34791/97

    KHALFAOUI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    Furthermore, a limitation will violate the Convention if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Golder v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 18-20, §§ 38-40, Levages Prestations Services v. France , judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII; Edificaciones March Galego S.A. v. Spain , judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 290, § 34; Khalfaoui v. France , no. 34791/97, §§ 35 and 36, ECHR 1999-IX; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

    Dieter Krombach

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97
    Furthermore, a limitation will violate the Convention if it does not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Golder v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 18-20, §§ 38-40, Levages Prestations Services v. France , judgment of 23 October 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1543, § 40, Brualla Gómez de la Torre v. Spain , judgment of 19 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII; Edificaciones March Galego S.A. v. Spain , judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 290, § 34; Khalfaoui v. France , no. 34791/97, §§ 35 and 36, ECHR 1999-IX; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

    Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

    Die Waffengleichheit ist nicht gewährleistet, wenn dem Verteidiger der Zugang zu denjenigen Schriftstücken in der Ermittlungsakte versagt wird, die für die wirksame Anfechtung der Rechtmäßigkeit der Freiheitsentziehung seines Mandaten wesentlich sind (siehe u. v. a. Rechtssachen Lamy ./. Belgien, 30. März 1989, Randnr. 29, Serie A Band 151; Nikolova ./. Bulgarien [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31195/96, Randnr. 58, EGMR 1999-II;… Schöps, a. a. O., Randnr. 44; Shishkov ./. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 38822/97, Randnr. 77, EGMR 2003-I;… und Svipsta, a. a. O., Randnr. 129).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

    IDALOV c. RUSSIE

    Les autorités doivent démontrer de manière convaincante que chaque période de détention, aussi courte fût-elle, était justifiée (Chichkov c. Bulgarie, no 38822/97, § 66, CEDH 2003-I).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 17391/06

    PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Although the reasonableness of the length of the detention cannot be defined in abstracto, and whereas even short periods of detention are susceptible to review by the Court (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I (extracts), and Å¢urcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 45 et seq., 23 October 2007), the Court observes that in casu the applicants" detention was mainly justified by the gravity of the charges against them; the three detention orders were equally laconic and did not rely on other facts specific to the situation of each applicant (except for a very general reference to the "personality" of the first applicant).
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