Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30666/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56897) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VAN VELDEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 35 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30666/08
- EGMR, 26.09.2012 - 30666/08
- EGMR - 30666/08 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05
KOROLEV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30666/08
The Court has clarified its understanding of the new criterion in Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010-..., in the following terms:. - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30666/08
As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, p. 37, § 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial. - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30666/08
The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161). - EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 30666/08
The position might be otherwise if the deduction from sentence had been based upon an acknowledgement by the national courts of a violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 41, Series A no. 77, and Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, § 61, 22 June 2004; see also Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 47, 25 October 2007).