Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEDLER v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 44115/98
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

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, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in 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.

  Nor can that Article be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to place him in a civil hospital to enable him to obtain a particular kind of medical treatment (see Lukanov v. Bulgaria, Eur. Comm. HR, Dec. 12.1.1995, D.R. 80-A, pp. 128-130; Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V, p. 1966, §§ 64 et seq.; Kudla v. Poland, no. 30210/96, §§ 91 and 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case; this is also the case when the application concerns length of judicial proceedings (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the particular circumstances of each case; this is also the case when the application concerns length of judicial proceedings (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001; Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  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 laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV; Kudla, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in 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, 30.05.2006 - 71152/01

  BARSZCZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Barszcz v. Poland, no. 71152/01, 30 May 2006, §§ 26-35.
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  It should also be borne in mind that the applicant retained the right to submit a further application at any time (see, mutatis mutandis, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 2, § 56).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 44115/98

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, § 84, Kudla, cited above, § 111).