Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  URSU v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  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, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p.37, § 4), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 41, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  He pointed to Article 25 of the Constitution, according to which persons may be arrested only under warrant issued by a judge for a maximum period of 30 days, and argued that the situation in the present case resembled that in the cases of Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III) and Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  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 their continued detention (see YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 52).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 3817/05

  He pointed to Article 25 of the Constitution, according to which persons may be arrested only under warrant issued by a judge for a maximum period of 30 days, and argued that the situation in the present case resembled that in the cases of Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III) and Boicenco v. Moldova (no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006).