Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEREDA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  The Court must, therefore, scrutinise complaints of delays in release of detainees with particular vigilance (see Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, § 25, Reports 1997-IV; K.-F. v. Germany, 27 November 1997, § 70, Reports 1997-VII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 80, 30 January 2003; Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 83, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 62414/00

  PALUSINSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  However, the established jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court indicated that constitutional complaints based solely on the allegedly wrongful interpretation of a legal provision were excluded from its jurisdiction (see, among many other authorities, Palusinski v. Poland (dec.), no. 62414/00, ECHR 2006-...; Dlugolecki v. Poland, no. 23806/03, § 25, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 42052/98

  LAKATOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  The rule in Article 35 § 1 is based on the assumption that there is an effective domestic remedy available in respect of the alleged breach of an individual's Convention rights (see Lakatos v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 42052/98, 23 October 2001).

 
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  The Court must, therefore, scrutinise complaints of delays in release of detainees with particular vigilance (see Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, § 25, Reports 1997-IV; K.-F. v. Germany, 27 November 1997, § 70, Reports 1997-VII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 80, 30 January 2003; Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 83, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1 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, inter alia, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  The Court must, therefore, scrutinise complaints of delays in release of detainees with particular vigilance (see Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, § 25, Reports 1997-IV; K.-F. v. Germany, 27 November 1997, § 70, Reports 1997-VII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV; and Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, § 80, 30 January 2003; Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 83, 18 March 2008).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 54727/08

  The words "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" essentially refer to domestic law and lay down an obligation to comply with its substantive and procedural provisions, but also require that any measure depriving the individual of his or her liberty must be compatible with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33, and Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II).

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 35413/07

  KARPOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court is particularly concerned about the fact that the Russian Code on the Execution of Sentences allowed the authorities to delay the implementation of the release order for any duration of time pending receipt of a certified copy (compare Wereda v. Poland, no. 54727/08, §§ 43-44, 26 November 2013, and Mamelka v. Poland, no. 16761/07, § 34, 17 April 2012).