Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RADONJIC AND ROMIC v. SERBIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RADONJIC AND ROMIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  The Court of Appeal in Belgrade emphasised that pursuant to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (notably, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), this ground could be regarded as relevant and sufficient only if it was based on facts capable of showing that the accused's release would actually disturb public order.

  In exceptional circumstances this factor may therefore be taken into account for the purposes of the Convention, in any event in so far as domestic law recognises the notion of disturbance to public order caused by an offence (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, § 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  The Court of Appeal in Belgrade emphasised that pursuant to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (notably, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), this ground could be regarded as relevant and sufficient only if it was based on facts capable of showing that the accused's release would actually disturb public order.

 
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 28971/05

  KUDIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  Moreover, the redress afforded by the national authorities must be appropriate and sufficient (see Kudic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 28971/05, § 17, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are actual indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kud?‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI, and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 139, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 8701/21

  PINKAS AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  Simple reference to the tariff fixed by the local bar associations, for example, is insufficient in this regard (see Pinkas and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 8701/21, § 77, 4 October 2022).

• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 57325/19

  JANAKIESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The relevant general principles have recently been summarised in Radonjic and Romic v. Serbia (no. 43674/16, §§ 62-70, 4 April 2023).