Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOMBEK v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 75107/01
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  In addition, the habeas corpus guarantee contained in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention supports the view that detention which is prolonged beyond the initial period foreseen in paragraph 3 necessitates "judicial intervention" as a safeguard against arbitrariness (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 69, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  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, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle only be lawful if it is carried out pursuant to a court order (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 753, § 42, and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX).

 
• 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 - 75107/01

  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, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  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, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  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 judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 75107/01

  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).