Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,63874
EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,63874)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.12.2006 - 62324/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,63874)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Dezember 2006 - 62324/00 (https://dejure.org/2006,63874)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,63874) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

    CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

    It does not appear therefore that his case presented particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the perpetrator as would undoubtedly have been the case had the proceedings concerned organised crime (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 37, 4 May 2006; Dudek v. Poland, no. 633/03, § 36, 4 May 2006).

    In view of the above, the Court is of the opinion that the proceedings in which the prolongation of his detention was examined satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Telecki v. Poland, (dec.), no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 47, 4 May 2006).

  • EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

    CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court's decisions in cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.

    In particular, it considered that it was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, ECHR 2005-V).

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the Court's judgment in Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 75, ECHR 2000-XI, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 and 23, 4 May 2006.

    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 (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).

  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

    GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    However, even assuming that the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies, the Court reiterates that it is not called upon to deal with errors of fact and law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    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, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

    JABLONSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    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, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1(c) a hearing is required (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Assenov and Others, cited above, § 162, with references to Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; and Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    As established in Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, § 4), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give the judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.
  • EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

    W. c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    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 (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

    MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
    (b) 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 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI, both with reference to Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

    McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

    SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

    Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

    KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

    La Cour a déjà admis que, dans certaines circonstances, notamment lorsque l'intéressé a pu comparaître devant le tribunal statuant sur sa demande d'élargissement en premier ressort, le respect des exigences procédurales inhérentes à l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention n'exigeait pas qu'il comparaisse de nouveau devant la juridiction de recours (Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 150, 27 mai 2010, Rahbar-Pagard c. Bulgarie, nos 45466/99 et 29903/02, § 67, 6 avril 2006, et Depa c Pologne, no 62324/00, §§ 48-49, 12 décembre 2006).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 60225/11

    MURAT ÖZDEMIR c. TURQUIE

    La Cour rappelle également que, dans certaines circonstances, notamment lorsque l'intéressé a pu comparaître devant le tribunal statuant sur sa demande d'élargissement en premier ressort, le respect des exigences procédurales inhérentes à l'article 5 § 4 n'exige pas qu'il comparaisse de nouveau devant la juridiction de recours (Rahbar-Pagard c. Bulgarie, nos 45466/99 et 29903/02, § 67, 6 avril 2006, Depa c. Pologne, no 62324/00, §§ 48-49, 12 décembre 2006, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 150, 27 mai 2010).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 31595/07

    ABDULSITAR AKGÜL c. TURQUIE

    La Cour rappelle en outre avoir déjà admis dans des affaires antérieures que, dans certaines circonstances, notamment lorsque l'intéressé a pu comparaître devant le tribunal statuant sur sa demande d'élargissement en premier ressort, le respect des exigences procédurales inhérentes à l'article 5 § 4 n'exigeait pas qu'il comparût de nouveau devant la juridiction de recours (voir, entre autres, Depa c. Pologne, no 62324/00, §§ 48-49, 12 décembre 2006, et Saghinadze et autres c. Géorgie, no 18768/05, § 150, 27 mai 2010).
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