Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MORKUNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 9, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 18, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  In this connection, the Convention case-law has distinguished several basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will abscond and fail to appear for trial, or that he/she will take action to prejudice the administration of justice, for instance by suppressing evidence (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15; see also Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, §§ 8-13), or create public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  Even flaws in the detention order do not necessarily render the underlying period of detention "unlawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, 31 July 2000, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  In this connection, the Convention case-law has distinguished several basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will abscond and fail to appear for trial, or that he/she will take action to prejudice the administration of justice, for instance by suppressing evidence (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15; see also Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, §§ 8-13), or create public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).

 
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  In this context regard must be had in particular to the character of the person involved and his moral stature (see W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, § 33), as well as other special features such as the possible lengthy persistence of criminal behaviour, the magnitude of the damage incurred by the victims of the alleged crime, and the level of dangerousness of the accused (see, mutatis mutandis, Matznetter, cited above, ibid.).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  In this connection, the Convention case-law has distinguished several basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will abscond and fail to appear for trial, or that he/she will take action to prejudice the administration of justice, for instance by suppressing evidence (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15; see also Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, §§ 8-13), or create public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  In this connection, the Convention case-law has distinguished several basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will abscond and fail to appear for trial, or that he/she will take action to prejudice the administration of justice, for instance by suppressing evidence (see Stögmüller v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, § 15; see also Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, § 14), commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, §§ 8-13), or create public disorder (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 51).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 29798/02

  Arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44).

• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 17095/02

  BALCIUNAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court likewise notes that the applicant had no prior convictions (see, by converse implication, Morkūnas v. Lithuania (dec.), 29798/02, 12 April 2007).