Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1991,16698
EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86 (https://dejure.org/1991,16698)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.06.1991 - 12369/86 (https://dejure.org/1991,16698)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juni 1991 - 12369/86 (https://dejure.org/1991,16698)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1991,16698) 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

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 5-3 Non-violation de l'art. 5-4 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LETELLIER v. FRANCE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (363)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

    Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
    The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention (see the Stögmüller judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, § 4), but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (ibid., and see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 24-25, § 12, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 42, § 104).

    When the only remaining reason for continued detention is the fear 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 lodging a security (see the Wemhoff judgment, cited above, Series A no. 7, p. 25, § 15).

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
    It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention (see, inter alia, the Neumeister judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, §§ 4-5).

    It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see, mutatis mutandis, the Neumeister judgment cited above, Series A no. 8, p. 39, § 10).

  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

    B. ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
    Where such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see the Matznetter judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, p. 34, § 12, and the B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, p. 16, § 42).
     
  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
    The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention (see the Stögmüller judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, § 4), but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (ibid., and see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 24-25, § 12, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 42, § 104).
  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

    Stögmüller ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
    The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention (see the Stögmüller judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, § 4), but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty (ibid., and see the Wemhoff judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 24-25, § 12, and the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 42, § 104).
  • EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

    Matznetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
    Where such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see the Matznetter judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10, p. 34, § 12, and the B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, p. 16, § 42).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

    Where such grounds were 'relevant" and 'sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed 'special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207, and Ya?c? and Sarg?n v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

    Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

    Those risks must be duly substantiated, and the authorities" reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207; Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 44, Series A no. 225; Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, §§ 73 and 76, 13 January 2009; and Merabishvili, cited above, § 222).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

    IDALOV c. RUSSIE

    Il apparaît que la Cour a également raisonné de la même manière dans certaines affaires où la détention provisoire du requérant avant son jugement en première instance n'était pas continue, sans pour autant indiquer explicitement pourquoi elle considérait les périodes de détention comme un tout (Letellier c. France, 26 juin 1991, § 34, série A no 207, Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 66, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits) ; et Mitev c. Bulgarie, no 40063/98, § 102, 22 décembre 2004).

    En outre, la continuation de la détention ne saurait servir à anticiper sur une peine privative de liberté (Letellier c. France, 26 juin 1991, § 51, série A no 207 ; voir aussi Panchenko c. Russie, no 45100/98, § 102, 8 février 2005 ; Goral c. Pologne, no 38654/97, § 68, 30 octobre 2003 ; et Ilijkov c. Bulgarie, no 33977/96, § 81, 26 juillet 2001).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht