Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAPRIANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to right to be brought promptly before a judge Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to length of pre-trial detention Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 41171/98
• EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 41171/98
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

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

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  Having regard to the criteria established in its case-law for the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark, no. 49017/99, 19 June 2003), the Court finds that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant did not violate the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  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 (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Jecius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX] §§ 93 and 94).

 
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Jecius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX] §§ 93 and 94).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  Any system of mandatory detention on remand is per se incompatible with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, §§ 35-53; the Clooth v. Belgium judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, § 44; the Muller v. France judgment of 17 March 1997, Reports 1997-II, §§ 35-45; the above cited Labita judgment, §§ 152 and 162-165; and Jecius v. Lithuania, [no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX] §§ 93 and 94).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 41171/98

  The Court found, in a number of Bulgarian cases which concerned the system of detention pending trial as it existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, that neither investigators before whom accused persons were brought, nor prosecutors who approved detention orders could be considered to be "officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Assenov and Others, cited above, pp. 2298-99, §§ 144-150; Nikolova v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 49-53; and Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).