Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARFUSS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 35848/97
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97

  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 the W. v. Switzerland judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97

  The Court may examine under Article 5 § 3 the length of the applicant's detention between 19 May 1994 and 7 November 1997, i.e. from the moment when he was remanded in custody, until the delivery of the Regional Court's judgment (see the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 23, § 9).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 35848/97

  Nonetheless, such conduct constitutes an objective fact, not capable of being attributed to the respondent State, which is to be taken into account when determining whether or not the proceedings exceeded a "reasonable time" (see the I.A. v. France judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, pp. 2984-2985, § 121, and the Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 36, § 82).

• EGMR, 08.02.2005 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 66365/09

  SAVICKAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Whilst noting that the claimant's conduct during the criminal proceedings, in lodging complaints that were not granted, raised certain suspicions as to whether he had an interest in seeing the proceedings swiftly terminated, the Supreme Court, on the basis of Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (no. 35848/97, § 81, 31 July 2000), nevertheless dismissed the State's argument that the criminal proceedings had been protracted because the claimant had actively exercised his procedural rights.
• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 16.03.2004 - 45100/98

  PANCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI; Barfuss v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 35848/97, 7 September 1999).