Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SECRIERU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SECRIERU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  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 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  Justifications which have been deemed "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons in the Court's case-law have included such grounds as the danger of absconding, the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, the risk of collusion, the risk of reoffending, the risk of causing public disorder and the need to protect the detainee (see, for instance, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9; Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 70, Series A no. 224; Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 95, Series A no. 241-A; and I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 108, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  Justifications which have been deemed "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons in the Court's case-law have included such grounds as the danger of absconding, the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, the risk of collusion, the risk of reoffending, the risk of causing public disorder and the need to protect the detainee (see, for instance, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9; Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 70, Series A no. 224; Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 95, Series A no. 241-A; and I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 108, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  Furthermore, when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  SHISHANOV c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  The Court reiterates the general principles concerning conditions of detention set out in Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, §§ 76-79, 13 September 2005; in Shishanov v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 11353/06, §§ 83-85, 15 September 2015; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 163-67, ECHR 2016 (extracts); and Mursic v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 104, ECHR 2016.
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  Justifications which have been deemed "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons in the Court's case-law have included such grounds as the danger of absconding, the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, the risk of collusion, the risk of reoffending, the risk of causing public disorder and the need to protect the detainee (see, for instance, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9; Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 70, Series A no. 224; Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 95, Series A no. 241-A; and I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 108, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 20546/16

  Justifications which have been deemed "relevant" and "sufficient" reasons in the Court's case-law have included such grounds as the danger of absconding, the risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses or of evidence being tampered with, the risk of collusion, the risk of reoffending, the risk of causing public disorder and the need to protect the detainee (see, for instance, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7; Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9; Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 70, Series A no. 224; Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 95, Series A no. 241-A; and I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 108, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VII).