Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CZARNECKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01

  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, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01

  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, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 80, 21 December 2000).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial; the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice or commit further offences or cause public disorder (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 59, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.07.2005 - 75112/01

  According to the Convention organs' case-law, a person convicted at the first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see, for example, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).

• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 36293/02

  TEMESAN v. ROMANIA

  Furthermore, the financial award made by the domestic courts (see paragraph 30 above) is comparable to what the Court itself grants for similar violations (see, among many other cases, Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 20 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 529; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, 4 July 2000; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, 10 October 2000; Eryk Kawka v. Poland, no. 33885/96, 27 June 2002; Dacewicz v. Poland, no. 34611/97, 2 July 2002; Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, ECHR 2003-I (extracts); Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); Gusinskiy v. Russia, no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004-IV; D.P. v. Poland, no. 34221/96, 20 January 2004; Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005; Czarnecki v. Poland, no. 75112/01, 28 July 2005; Hristova v. Bulgaria, no. 60859/00, 7 December 2006; and Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, 13 March 2007).