Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 16349/17 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,34972) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHTEPA v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SHTEPA v. UKRAINE
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 16349/17
The Court particularly notes that, in the present case, the domestic courts repeatedly justified the applicant's further detention by the absence of reasons to release her, while Article 5 § 3 of the Convention implies an opposite approach and requires the national authorities to indicate grounds for the person's continuing detention (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 16349/17
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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 16349/17
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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).