Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,61049
EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,61049)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.11.2007 - 1636/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,61049)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. November 2007 - 1636/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,61049)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,61049) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, 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 continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2001 - 41354/98

    ARVELAKIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    Recalling that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States the duty to organise their legal systems in such a way that their courts can meet each of the requirements of that provision, including the obligation to decide cases within a reasonable time (see Arvelakis v. Greece, no. 41354/98, § 26, 12 April 2001), the Court considers that the domestic court could have applied stricter measures to speed up the proceedings.
  • EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

    ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, 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 continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see, among other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 77, 26 July 2001, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

    SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    In this connection, the Court further reiterates that 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, in particular, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 59, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2007 - 45977/99

    ÇOBANOGLU ET BUDAK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments: Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2005-IV, and ÇobanoÄ?lu and Budak v. Turkey, no. 45977/99, §§ 29-30, 30 January 2007.
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    Finally, although, in general, the expression "the state of the evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
  • EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

    LETELLIER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 1636/02
    Finally, although, in general, the expression "the state of the evidence" may be a relevant factor for the existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, in the present case it nevertheless, alone, cannot justify the length of the detention of which the applicant complains (see Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43, Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, and Mansur v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, § 55).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 6644/08

    FIRAT CAN v. TURKEY

    The Court considers that the applicants" complaints under Articles 5 § 3, 13 and 6 § 2 of the Convention concerning the length of his pre-trial detention should be examined from the standpoint of Article 5 § 3 alone (see, mutatis mutandis, Güler v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14152/02, 28 September 2006, and TamamboÄ?a and Gül v. Turkey, no. 1636/02, § 26, 29 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 1915/03

    ARZU v. TURKEY

    The relevant domestic law and practice at the material time as well as recent developments can be found in the following judgments: Öcalan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 46221/99, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2005-IV), TamamboÄ?a and Gül v. Turkey (no. 1636/02, §§ 23-24, 29 November 2007) and Salduz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 36391/02, §§ 27-31, 27 November 2008).
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