Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PERICA OREB v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Oreb v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  As to the two periods of the applicant's pre-trial detention, namely between 4 August and 3 October 2008 and then between 28 October 2008 and 20 September 2010, the Court considers that, according to its case-law, where such periods can be examined before the Court having regard to the provisions of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a global assessment of the aggregate period is required (see, for example, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts), and, mutatis mutandis, Idalov, cited above, § 130; and Dervishi, cited above, § 126).

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, in determining the length of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused was taken into custody and ends on the day when he was released (see, for example, Fesar v. the Czech Republic, no. 76576/01, § 44, 13 November 2008) or when the charge was determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 99, 1 March 2007; and Sizov v. Russia, no. 33123/08, § 44, 15 March 2011).

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007; Panchenko, cited above, § 102; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X; Ilijkov, § 81; and Pesa, § 104, cited above).

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, while a premature expression by the tribunal itself of such an opinion will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, §§ 27, 30 and 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308; and Karakas and Yesilırmak v. Turkey, no. 43925/985, § 49, 28 June 2005; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09 [GC], § 93, 12 July 2013).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, while a premature expression by the tribunal itself of such an opinion will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, §§ 27, 30 and 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308; and Karakas and Yesilırmak v. Turkey, no. 43925/985, § 49, 28 June 2005; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09 [GC], § 93, 12 July 2013).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  The Court also reiterates that the Convention must be interpreted in such a way as to guarantee rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see, for example, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37, and Capeau v. Belgium, no. 42914/98, § 21, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  It suffices, in the absence of a formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official in question regards the accused as guilty, while a premature expression by the tribunal itself of such an opinion will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 56, Series A no. 35; Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, §§ 27, 30 and 37, Series A no. 62; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 308; and Karakas and Yesilırmak v. Turkey, no. 43925/985, § 49, 28 June 2005; and Allen v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25424/09 [GC], § 93, 12 July 2013).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  In this connection the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 5 § 4 enshrines, as does Article 6 § 1, the right of access to court, which can only be subject to reasonable limitations that do not impair its very essence (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 82-90, ECHR 2003-I, and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 70, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  Nor can continuation of the detention be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (see Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 101, 1 March 2007; Panchenko, cited above, § 102; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 180, ECHR 2005-X; Ilijkov, § 81; and Pesa, § 104, cited above).
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39742/05

  PIOTR BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  Against the above background, the Court considers that, in the present case, there was no causal connection between the applicant's conviction in another set of criminal proceedings and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009 and Dervishi, cited above, § 125) and that his pre-trial detention in the proceedings at issue never coincided with serving any prison sentence following his conviction in separate criminal proceedings (see, by contrast, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 14, 45, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 19359/04

  Rückwirkende Aufhebung der Höchstdauer der Sicherungsverwahrung (Verurteilung; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 20824/09

  Against the above background, the Court considers that, in the present case, there was no causal connection between the applicant's conviction in another set of criminal proceedings and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009 and Dervishi, cited above, § 125) and that his pre-trial detention in the proceedings at issue never coincided with serving any prison sentence following his conviction in separate criminal proceedings (see, by contrast, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 14, 45, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 33123/08

  SIZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 13610/12

  VARDAN MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Conversely, in a number of cases the Court has found that the wording employed by the domestic courts when deciding on the applicant's detention did not amount to a declaration of the applicants" guilt in breach of the presumption of innocence (see, for example, Karan v. Croatia (dec.), no. 21139/05, 7 December 2006; Perica Oreb v. Croatia, no. 20824/09, §§ 142-143, 31 October 2013; Miladinov and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos.
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 46398/09

  MILADINOV AND OTHERS v.

  It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV, and Perica Oreb v. Croatia, no. 20824/09, § 107, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 45475/18

  M.D. v. LATVIA

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for the applicant's continued pre-trial detention (see, for example, Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016, and Urtans v. Latvia, no. 16858/11, 28 October 2014) and relating to the breach of presumption of innocence (see, for example, Matija?.evic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, ECHR 2006-X; Mugo?.a v. Montenegro, no. 76522/12, 21 June 2016; and Perica Oreb v. Croatia, no. 20824/09, 31 October 2013).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 49330/16

  NEGULYAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, it cannot be said that, by asserting that the crimes had been committed "in concert" with the applicant, the City Court limited itself to describing a state of suspicion in respect of the applicant or, for instance, certain elements of a penal provision (see, mutatis mutanids, Krebs v. Germany, no. 68556/13, § 57, 20 February 2020; and contrast to Perica Oreb v. Croatia, no. 20824/09, §§ 142-43, 31 October 2013; N.A. v. Norway, no. 27473/11, § 49, 18 December 2014; and Fleischner v. Germany, no. 61985/12, § 63, 3 October 2019).