Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TONDERYS v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 14382/04
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV; Kudla, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.

 
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  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 (Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, § 84, Kudla, cited above, § 111).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  The Court reiterates that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see, for example, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 14382/04

  The end of the period referred to in Article 5 § 3 is "the day on which the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance" (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9) and, consequently, detention after acquittal is again covered by that provision.