Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DERVISHI v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 67341/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  Furthermore, 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", but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145-147, ECHR 2000-IV; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  The purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  Furthermore, 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", but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 145-147, ECHR 2000-IV; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  As to the two periods of the applicant's pre-trial detention, namely between 14 May 2008 and 9 December 2010 and between 27 February 2011 and 1 February 2012, the Court considers that, according to its case-law, where such periods can be examined before the Court having regard to the provisions of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a global assessment of the aggregate period is required (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and, mutatis mutandis, Idalov, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  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, 26 January 1993, § 30, Series A no. 254-A; and Pantano v. Italy, no. 60851/00, § 66, 6 November 2003).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, in determining the length of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused was taken into custody and ends on the day when he was released (see, for example, Fesar v. the Czech Republic, no. 76576/01, § 44, 13 November 2008) or when the charge was determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 99, 1 March 2007; and Sizov v. Russia, no. 33123/08, § 44, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  As to the two periods of the applicant's pre-trial detention, namely between 14 May 2008 and 9 December 2010 and between 27 February 2011 and 1 February 2012, the Court considers that, according to its case-law, where such periods can be examined before the Court having regard to the provisions of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a global assessment of the aggregate period is required (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and, mutatis mutandis, Idalov, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  It is however necessary, among other conditions, that the danger be a plausible one and the measure appropriate, in the light of the circumstances of the case and in particular the past history and the personality of the person concerned (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 40, Series A no. 225; and Paradysz v. France, no. 17020/05, § 71, 29 October 2009).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  PIOTR BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  Against the above background, the Court considers that there was no causal connection between the applicant's conviction in another set of criminal proceedings and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009) and that his pre-trial detention in the proceedings at issue never coincided with serving any prison sentence following his conviction in separate criminal proceedings (see, by contrast, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 14, 45, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 33123/08

  SIZOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 67341/10

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, in determining the length of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused was taken into custody and ends on the day when he was released (see, for example, Fesar v. the Czech Republic, no. 76576/01, § 44, 13 November 2008) or when the charge was determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 99, 1 March 2007; and Sizov v. Russia, no. 33123/08, § 44, 15 March 2011).