Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75529/01

  Verschleppter Prozess - Mann prozessiert seit 16 Jahren um Entschädigung nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 128, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  Continued detention can be justified 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 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-X, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  However, in the specific circumstances of the case, it does not consider it necessary to examine whether they were also sufficient or whether the domestic authorities should have considered in addition alternative measures to secure the applicant's presence at trial, as in any event the criminal proceedings in question were not conducted with the expedition required by Article 5 § 3 (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 71, Series A no. 244).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 65655/01

  Menschenrechte: Überlange Untersuchungshaft, "La Belle"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  The period to be taken into consideration under Article 5 § 3 started with the applicant's transfer to Serbia on 6 July 2007 (see Nedyalkov v. Bulgaria, no. 44241/98, § 61, 3 November 2005, and Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, § 33, ECHR 2006-XII) and ended on 1 April 2014 with his conviction by the High Court (see paragraph 17 above).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  Continued detention can be justified 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 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-X, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  Accordingly, as there were no exceptional circumstances in the present case that could justify such lengthy proceedings (compare and contrast to Chraidi v. Germany, cited above, §§ 43-45, and Lukovic, cited above, §§ 47 and 55), the Court considers that the applicant's detention exceeding seven years was extended beyond a reasonable time (see I.A. v. France, cited above, §§ 98 and 112; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 175 and 189, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); and Korchuganova v. Russia, no. 75039/01, §§ 71 in limine and 77, 8 June 2006).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  From 31 October 2014 until the present day, the applicant is again in pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, § 34, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  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, amongst many others, Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 67, Series A no. 224; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 42, Series A no. 175; Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, § 54, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V; and I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  Article 6 is, in criminal matters, designed to ensure that a person charged does not remain too long in a state of uncertainty about his fate (see Nakhmanovich v. Russia, no. 55669/00, § 89, 2 March 2006, and Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, § 173, 24 June 2010).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 75039/01

  KORCHUGANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05

  VELIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 44241/98

  NEDYALKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  LUKOVIC v. SERBIA

• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  None of the adjournments or any other delays were imputable to the applicant (see Kuibishev v. Bulgaria, no. 39271/98, § 69, 30 September 2004, and Grujovic v. Serbia, no. 25381/12, § 53, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 38736/05

  KVANTALIANI v. GEORGIA

  The fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had already been discontinued rendered his case less urgent at the material time, as his liberty was not at stake (see, a contrario, Grujovic v. Serbia, no. 25381/12, §§ 60 and 65, 21 July 2015, and Malikowski v. Poland, no. 15154/03, § 78, 16 October 2007).