Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALKHASYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 6729/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  Arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (see Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 44, Series A no. 225).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  A person charged with an offence must always be released pending trial unless the State can show that there are "relevant and sufficient" reasons to justify the continued detention (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, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  The expectation of heavy sentence and the weight of evidence may be relevant but is not as such decisive and the possibility of obtaining guarantees may have to be used to offset any risk (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  The domestic courts must examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their decisions on the applications for release (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for detaining a person before judgment when that person is suspected of having committed an offence: the risk that the accused would fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6729/07

  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 YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 52, Series A no. 319-A).