Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X.Y. v. HUNGARY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  X.Y. v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 43888/08

  The disclosure of evidence must take place in good time, giving access to the relevant elements of the file prior to the applicant's first appearance before the judicial authorities (see Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 43888/08

  In such cases the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 43888/08

  However, there is no element in the case file or the parties" submissions indicating that the applicant could indeed exercise this right (cf. Lamy v. Belgium, loc. cit.; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 47, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 138, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 43888/08

  However, there is no element in the case file or the parties" submissions indicating that the applicant could indeed exercise this right (cf. Lamy v. Belgium, loc. cit.; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 47, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 138, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 43888/08

  That rule must be applied "with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism"; it is sufficient that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been raised, "at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law", before the national authorities (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17089/19

  S.AB. AND S.AR. v. HUNGARY

  These considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention also in this respect (compare, mutatis mutandis, X.Y. v. Hungary, no. 43888/08, §§ 28-29, 19 March 2013).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 29440/16

  HAOUARI v. HUNGARY

  This fact alone enables the Court to hold that that the applicant's detention was devoid of a legal basis in the national law (see X.Y. v. Hungary, no. 43888/08, §§ 28-29, 19 March 2013).
• EGMR - 15439/23 (anhängig)

  UÄ"MANS v. LATVIA

  In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case, notably in terms of access to the case materials on the basis of which the applicant's detention was justified (see, X.Y. v. Hungary, no. 43888/08, §§ 50-52, 19 March 2013; Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, no. 1346/12, §§ 72-78, 20 February 2014; MiÄ·elsons v. Latvia, no. 46413/10, §§ 74-82, 3 November 2015; and Albrechtas v. Lithuania, no. 1886/06, §§ 73-85, 19 January 2016)?.