Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 36246/97 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
RUSIECKI v. POLAND
(englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 36246/97
- EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36246/97
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 36246/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 36246/97
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.As from that date he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and, consequently, that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04
CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 36246/97
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.Moreover, as demonstrated by the ever increasing number of judgments in which the Court has found Poland to be in breach of Article 5 § 3 in respect of applicants involved in organised crime, the present case is by no means an isolated example of the imposition of unjustifiably lengthy detention but a confirmation of a practice found to be contrary to the Convention (see, among many other examples, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006; Kakol v. Poland, no. 3994/03, 6 September 2007; Malikowski v. Poland, no. 15154/03, 16 October 2007).