Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 7033/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,66529) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
TEODORSKI v. POLAND
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 7033/06
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 judgements (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, 03.10.2006 - 3501/02
RYBCZYNSCY v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 7033/06
For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, 3 October 2006; and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, 10 October 2006. - EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 69129/01
BIALAS v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 7033/06
For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, 3 October 2006; and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, 10 October 2006. - EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86
B. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 7033/06
The Court reiterates that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see, for example, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39). - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 7033/06
Such detention cannot be considered on the same footing as a detention under Article 5 § 1 (c), with which Article 5 § 3 is solely concerned, as it applies only to persons in custody awaiting their trial (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9 and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, judgment of 16 January 2007, § 54).