Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,34453) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HESSE v. AUSTRIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 26186/02
- EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86
B. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02
The Court, having regard to its case-law (see, as a recent authority, Dzelili v. Germany, no. 65745/01, § 68, 10 November 2005 and B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 35-40), finds that for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 the period of pre-trial detention ended on 23 August 2001, when the Graz Regional Court pronounced its judgment at first instance.As regards the danger of the applicant's absconding, the Court observes that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify the continued detention based on the risk of escape (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 25, § 14, and B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, p. 16, § 44).
- EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64
Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02
As regards the danger of the applicant's absconding, the Court observes that the possibility of a severe sentence alone is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify the continued detention based on the risk of escape (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 25, § 14, and B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, p. 16, § 44). - EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02
Continued detention can be justified in a given case 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 other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87
CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2007 - 26186/02
On 30 July 2001 the applicant, invoking Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention and referring to the case Clooth v. Belgium (judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225) lodged a fundamental-rights complaint (Grundrechtsbeschwerde) with the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof).