Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RYBACKI v. POLAND

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 52479/99
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 52479/99
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 52479/99

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

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning pre-trial detention (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the 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.

  The Court notes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-...; and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).

• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 39846/98

  BRENNAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  The manner in which Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) is to be applied during the preliminary investigation depends on the special features of the proceedings involved and on the circumstances of the case seen as a whole (see John Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, § 62; and Brennan v. the United Kingdom, no. 39846/98, § 45, ECHR 2001-X).

  The importance to the rights of the defence of ensuring confidentiality in meetings between the accused and his lawyers has been affirmed in various international instruments, including European instruments (see Brennan v. the United Kingdom, cited above, o. 39846/98, §§ 38-40, ECHR 2001-X; Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV, § 132-133).

• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  Lastly, the Government argued that in order to determine whether the aim of Article 6 - a fair trial - had been achieved, regard had to be had to the entirety of the domestic proceedings conducted in the case (Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, § 38).

  It thus leaves to the Contracting States the choice of the means of ensuring that it is secured in their judicial systems, the Court's task being only to ascertain whether the method they have chosen is consistent with the requirements of a fair trial (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 38, Series A no. 275).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning pre-trial detention (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the 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, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  The Court notes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-...; and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  However, if a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without such surveillance, his assistance would lose much of its effectiveness whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see S. v. Switzerland, 28 November 1991, § 48, Series A no. 220; Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 33).).
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  The Court further reiterates that although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A, and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 28.11.1991 - 12629/87

  S. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 52479/99

  However, if a lawyer were unable to confer with his client and receive confidential instructions from him without such surveillance, his assistance would lose much of its effectiveness whereas the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are practical and effective (see S. v. Switzerland, 28 November 1991, § 48, Series A no. 220; Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, § 33).).