Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAFÀ v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Conditional release;Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GAFA v. MALTA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 12050/04

  Mangouras ./. Spanien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  It also made reference to the Court's judgment in Mangouras v. Spain ([GC], no. 12050/04, § 79, ECHR 2010) as well as the Constitutional Court's judgment Salvatore Gauci v. Attorney General, of 31 July 1998, where it had been held that in establishing the amount to be deposited as security, the court must also consider other circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence and the danger to society.

  According to the Court's case-law, the guarantee provided for by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is designed to ensure the presence of the accused at the hearing (see Mangouras v. Spain [GC], no. 12050/04, § 78, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  In the instant case it cannot be argued that the period of detention was somehow of merely a few days" duration, as seems to have been the Grand Chamber's implicit argument in Aquilina v. Malta [GC] (no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III), where the detention lasted for just under nine days and where the core issue was the lack of automatic power on the part of the judicial authority to order release in the light of the domestic law as it then stood (§§ 49-50 and 53 of that judgment).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  More importantly, to accept that the outcome of a trial could have an impact on any complaints concerning pre-trial detention would mean that any such complaint would be premature in the absence of a final judgment in the criminal proceedings, which is evidently not the case under the Court's current case-law (see, by implication, amongst many others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. The United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X; and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, 13 April 2017).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  Therefore, the amount of bail must be set by reference to the detainee, his assets and his relationship with the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in case of his non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his part to abscond (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and the cases cited therein) or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Tsonev v. Bulgaria, (dec.) no. 44885/10, 8 December 2015; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  However, the accused whom the judicial authorities declare themselves prepared to release on bail must faithfully submit sufficient information, that can be checked if need be, about the amount of bail to be fixed (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 68, 10 August 2006; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 66, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 44885/10

  TSONEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and the cases cited therein) or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Tsonev v. Bulgaria, (dec.) no. 44885/10, 8 December 2015; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 1985/05

  SERGEY DENISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  Sergey Denisov's detention in breach of Article 5 § 3 attracted non-pecuniary damage to the tune of EUR 7, 000 - admittedly his pre-trial detention lasted some seven years, but he was eventually convicted of multiple counts of organising a criminal group, murder and assault, preparing explosive devices and unlawfully storing and carrying firearms, and sentenced to life imprisonment (see Sergey Denisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 1985/05 and 4 others, 19 April 2016).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  More importantly, to accept that the outcome of a trial could have an impact on any complaints concerning pre-trial detention would mean that any such complaint would be premature in the absence of a final judgment in the criminal proceedings, which is evidently not the case under the Court's current case-law (see, by implication, amongst many others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. The United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X; and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  AUSAD VALIMISED MTÜ v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and the cases cited therein) or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Rehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Tsonev v. Bulgaria, (dec.) no. 44885/10, 8 December 2015; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 46852/13

  BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE
• EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

  ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 52332/99

  CALI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47738/99

  OYA ATAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 58274/00

  LA ROSA ET ALBA c. ITALIE (N° 2)

• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06

  GORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The problem of the Article 41 wording was previously discussed in a dissenting opinion in Nikolova v Bulgaria [GC] (no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II), as well as in Gafà v. Malta (no. 54335/14, ECHR 2018).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  J'ai exposé mon avis sur cette question dans une opinion en partie dissidente jointe à l'arrêt Gafà c. Malte, no 54335/14, 22 mai 2018 (voir aussi, quoique dans un contexte un peu différent, l'opinion en partie dissidente annexée à l'arrêt Gorlov et autres c. Russie, nos 27057/06 et 2 autres, 2 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 5432/15

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA

  Given the subject matter of the applicant's complaints, the impugned delay in submitting the information in question cannot be seen as an attempt on his part to conceal from the Court any essential information that would be relevant for its decision (compare Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, § 62, 22 May 2018).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 568/19

  MYSLIWIEC v. POLAND

  As regards the complaint raised under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the conditions imposed on a suspect to ensure his or her appearance at trial - such as the establishment of an appropriate amount of bail - may be, depending on the circumstances of the case, of the utmost importance for assessing the merits of such a complaint (see, for example, Kolakovic v. Malta, no. 76392/12, §§ 68-69, 19 March 2015, and Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, §§ 70-71, 22 May 2018).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 23312/15

  ISTOMINA v. UKRAINE

  Therefore, the amount of bail must be set principally by reference to the accused, his or her assets and his or her relationship with the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in the event of the defendant's non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his or her part to abscond (see Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, § 70, 22 May 2018).