Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POROWSKI v. POLAND

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03
• EGMR, 18.04.2018 - 34458/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are described in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland (no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V), Ratajczyk v. Poland (no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII), and Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2005-V).

  In particular, the Court considered that the remedy was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42, ECHR 2005-V).

• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

  ANTONICELLI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I, with further references, and Antonicelli v. Poland, no. 2815/05, § 48, 19 May 2009).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 141/07

  WEGERA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The Court observes at the outset that in some earlier cases it has had due regard to rulings of the Constitutional Court declaring domestic legislation unconstitutional and/or incompatible with the Convention (see, inter alia, in respect of: the Bug river claims, Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 131, ECHR 2004-V; rent-control legislation and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, § 208, ECHR 2006-VIII; overcrowding of detention facilities and Article 3 of the Convention, Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 123, 22 October 2009; regulation of prisoners" visiting rights and Article 8 of the Convention, Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, §§ 73-74, 19 January 2010; the status of assessors and the standard of "independent tribunal" under Article 6 of the Convention, Henryk Urban and Ryszard Urban v. Poland, no. 23614/08, §§ 52 and 53, 30 November 2010; and "judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, Miroslaw Garlicki v. Poland, no. 36921/07, § 112, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  There thus exists a certain overlap between this term and the general requirement stated at the beginning of Article 5 § 1, namely the observance of "a procedure prescribed by law" (see Bordovskiy v. Russia, no. 49491/99, § 41, 8 February 2005, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE