Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LUKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Trial within a reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lukovic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  There is a clear danger that this detention will be misused; its continuation cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence.[2] Even if an accused makes use of his right not to "cooperate with the authorities," although this may indeed delay the "progress of the investigation" it is not acceptable that he should be made to "bear the consequences" by having his detention prolonged (see dissenting opinion of Judge De Meyer, W. v Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A).

  While the reasonable time cannot be assessed in the abstract (see, mutatis mutandis, the Stögmüller judgment cited above, p. 40, § 4), in a review of 69 Article 5 § 3 judgments provided by S. Trechsel, former President of the European Commission of Human Rights,[3] there is only one case where a 4-year detention was not found to have resulted in a finding of a violation (W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A).[4] Governments have often leaned on their own assessments of the complexity of the case, or made unfounded allegations about the risk of witness tampering, in order to excuse a lengthy delay - and the Court has often rejected those arguments (for one such list of violations, in a case where a violation of Article 5 § 3 was found because of lengthy detention despite complexity, see Dirdizov v. Russia, no. 41461/10, §§ 102-08, 27 November 2012).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  In addition, the Court reiterates that when the only remaining reason for continued detention is the risk that the accused will abscond and thereby subsequently avoid appearing for trial, he must be released if he is in a position to provide adequate guarantees to ensure that he will so appear, for example by posting bail (see, for example, Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 15, Series A no. 7).

  Furthermore, when the only remaining reason for continued detention is the fear that the accused will abscond and thereby subsequently avoid appearing for trial, his release pending trial must be ordered if it is possible to obtain from him guarantees that will ensure such appearance (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 15, Series A no. 7).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  The Court notes that in their orders, the domestic courts referred to the specific facts of the case and the applicant's personal circumstances and did not use "general and abstract" arguments for his continued detention (contrast, for example, Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 143, 11 July 2006, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 185-186, ECHR 2005-X).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  Absent a relevant and sufficient reason, a person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 58, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, § 53, 4 October 2005; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 182, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial", as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-X, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  The Court does recognise the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial as a reason to detain a person suspected of a crime before judgment (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  In determining whether the detention of an accused person exceeds a reasonable limit, it is for the national judicial authorities to seek all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty (Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, [Law Part] § 4, Series A no. 8).

• OLG Karlsruhe, 04.10.2021 - Ausl 301 AR 86/21

  Bewilligung der Auslieferung unter Berücksichtigung mitgliedsstaatlicher …

  Eine Untersuchungshaft wird auch bei einer sorgfältigen Ermittlung regelmäßig nicht länger als vier Jahre dauern dürfen (EGMR 26.3.2013 - 43808/07, Rn. 45 ff. - Lukovic ./. SRB;… mwN Löwe/Rosenberg/Esser, aaO, Rn. 253;… siehe aber EGMR 26.10.2006 - 65655/01, EuGRZ 2006, 648 Rn. 46 f. - Chraidi ./. D: fünfeinhalb Jahre im Einzelfall noch angemessen und EGMR 6.11.2014 - 67522/09 = NJW 2015, 3773 Rn. 53 ff. - Ereren ./. D fünf Jahren und acht Monaten im Einzelfall noch angemessen;… MüKoStPO/Gaede, aaO).
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20

  STAYKOV c. BULGARIE

  Pour apprécier le comportement dont les autorités ont fait preuve en l'espèce lorsqu'elles ont examiné l'intérêt public et le droit à la liberté du requérant, la Cour tiendra compte des circonstances découlant des soupçons des autorités nationales selon lesquels le requérant jouait un rôle essentiel dans l'activité criminelle organisée (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bak c. Pologne, no 7870/04, § 57, 16 janvier 2007 ; Tomecki c. Pologne, no 47944/06, § 30, 20 mai 2008 ; Lukovic c. Serbie, no 43808/07, § 47, 26 mars 2013, et ? tvrtecký, précité, § 58).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 25381/12

  GRUJOVIC v. SERBIA

  However, the Court notes that the applicant had not been charged with organising a criminal group or participating in organised crime which is further evident from the fact that the investigation in the present case had not been conducted by the Office of the Special Public Prosecutor for Organised Crime (compare Lukovic v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, §§ 46 and 55, 26 March 2013).