Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RIMSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Rimschi v. the Republic of Moldova

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 1649/12

  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 (McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006...).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 1649/12

  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, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 1649/12

  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 offer judicial authorities a choice between bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 1649/12

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319 A, § 52).

• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 3077/10

  CIORNEA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's unilateral declaration of 18 January 2018 and to the amount of compensation proposed by the Government which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, ECHR 2016 (extracts); see also Turcan and Turcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, 23 October 2007; Rimschi v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 1649/12, 13 January 2015), the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention) (see, for the relevant principles, Tahsin Acar, cited above, and Meriakri v. Moldova ((striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005)).