Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RYDZ v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  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, (no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  The Court will examine the reasonableness of the length of proceedings in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII, and Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, § 60, 15 October 1999).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 11215/02

  RATAJCZYK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  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; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, judgment of 3 October 2006, and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, judgment of 10 October 2006.

 
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 3501/02

  RYBCZYNSCY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  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; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, judgment of 3 October 2006, and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, judgment of 10 October 2006.
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 69129/01

  BIALAS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  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; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, judgment of 3 October 2006, and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, judgment of 10 October 2006.
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  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 (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  The Court recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" and that the detention coinciding with detention after conviction in separate criminal proceedings cannot be considered on the same footing as a situation of a person in custody awaiting his trial (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39, Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, judgment of 16 January 2007, § 54).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  With regard to the conduct of the authorities and of the applicant, the Court reiterates that only delays attributable to the State may justify a finding of a failure to comply with the "reasonable time" requirement (see, among other authorities, Proszak v. Poland, judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII, § 40) and that in civil proceedings the parties too must show "due diligence" (see the Pretto and Others v. Italy judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, pp. 14-15, § 33).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2007 - 13167/02

  The Court recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence" and that the detention coinciding with detention after conviction in separate criminal proceedings cannot be considered on the same footing as a situation of a person in custody awaiting his trial (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39, Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, judgment of 16 January 2007, § 54).

• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  NASAKIN v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the normal practice of the Convention organs has been, where a case has been communicated to the respondent Government, not to declare the application inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, unless this matter has been raised by the Government in their observations (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 145, ECHR 2001-VII; N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X; and Rydz v. Poland, no. 13167/02, § 72, 18 December 2007).