Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PASINSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

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

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04

  However, even assuming that the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, it reiterates that it is not called upon to deal with errors of fact and law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04

  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 [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04

  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, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04

  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 [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 6356/04

  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, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 52683/15

  ZAGALSKI v. POLAND

  Secondly, even if, due to the particular circumstances of the case, detention on remand is extended beyond the period generally accepted under the Court's case-law, particularly strong reasons would be required to justify this (see Pasinski v. Poland, no. 6356/04, § 44, 20 June 2006).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 26649/12

  MATCZAK v. POLAND

  However, it does not give the authorities unlimited power to prolong this preventive measure (see Pasinski v. Poland, no. 6356/04, § 44, 20 June 2006).
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 37245/13

  LABUDEK v. POLAND

  Secondly, even if, due to the particular circumstances of the case, detention on remand is extended beyond the period generally accepted under the Court's case-law, particularly strong reasons would be required to justify this (see Pasinski v. Poland, no. 6356/04, § 44, 20 June 2006).