Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRZASKA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 25792/94
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  However, when determining whether the applicant's continued detention after that date was justified in the light of Article 5 § 3, the fact that by 1 May 1993 the applicant had already been kept in custody for one year, ten months and three days must be taken into account (see the Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 18, § 49).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  As regards the end of the relevant period, the Court recalls that in principle conviction by a court marks the end of the period to be considered under Article 5 § 3; from that point on, the detention of the person concerned falls within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see the B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, p.14, § 36).
• EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

  Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  They relied in this respect on the Zimmerman and Steiner v. Switzerland judgment of 13 July 1983 (Series A no. 66, p. 35, § 36).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation (see the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22), it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question.
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47; Nikolova. Bulgaria [G.C.], no. 31195/96, § 58).

• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 74, 11 July 2000).

  In the present case a delay referred to above coupled with the fact that neither the applicant nor his lawyer were afforded an opportunity to attend the subsequent appeal hearing of 8 January 2003 and present their arguments, although the prosecutor was given that opportunity, do not allow the Court to conclude that the applicant effectively enjoyed his rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], no. 31195/96, 25.03.1999, § 59, Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, §§ 66-67, 4 July 2000 and Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, §§ 77-78, 11 July 2000).

• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 74, 11 July 2000).
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 18837/06

  ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 74, 11 July 2000).