Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DER TANG c. ESPAGNE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (ex delicto non oritur actio) Non-violation de l'Art. 5-3 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DER TANG v. SPAIN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Preliminary objection rejected (ex delicto non oritur actio) No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 10.02.1993 - 19382/92
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

  1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, by which the Court has been guided since its judgment in the Golder v. the United Kingdom case of 21 February 1975 (Series A no. 18, p. 13, paras. 29-30) - calls for compliance with those conditions as being essential to the admissibility of the application, failing which it will be incompatible with that provision (art. 5) of the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

  As established in the Court's case-law, whether a period of pre-trial detention can be considered "reasonable" must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 24, para. 10).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

  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, as the most recent authority, the W. v. Switzerland judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, para. 30).

 
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

  Subsequently, the Court - in accordance with its settled, albeit contested, case-law on the fullness of its jurisdiction (De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 29-30, paras. 47-52, and the four separate opinions annexed to that judgment, and my dissenting opinion annexed to the Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, pp. 23-24) - should have allowed the Spanish Government's preliminary objection or declared the application inadmissible of its own motion, without ruling on the merits of the case.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

  However, the existence of a strong suspicion of the involvement of the person concerned in serious offences, while constituting a relevant factor, cannot alone justify a long period of pre-trial detention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, para. 89).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19382/92

  In these circumstances and since no negligence by the applicant as regards the deposit of his security has been established, the Court takes the view that the relevant date is that of the applicant's actual release, namely 24 July 1992, when his wife paid the security (see the Kemmache v. France (no. 3) judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, p. 86, para.