Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,68739) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARATAY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
Violation od Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02
The obligation on Contracting States under Article 5 § 3 is therefore limited to bringing the detainee promptly before an appropriate officer at that initial stage, although Article 5 § 4 of the Convention may in certain cases require that the person be subsequently brought before a judge for the purpose of effectively contesting the lawfulness of his detention when it lasts for a long time (Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 84, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02
According to the Court's case-law, it follows from the wording of Article 6 - and particularly from the autonomous meaning to be given to the notion of "criminal charge" - that this provision has some application to pre-trial proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36). - EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02
Although, in general, the expression "the state of the evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A; Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55, and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003). - EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02
Although, in general, the expression "the state of the evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A; Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55, and Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 28 January 2003). - EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84
Brandstetter ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 11468/02
While national law may satisfy this requirement in various ways, whatever method is chosen should ensure that the other party is aware that observations have been filed and is given an opportunity to comment thereon (see, mutatis mutandis, Brandstetter v. Austria, judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, pp. 27-28, § 67).