Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROMANOV v. HUNGARY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  1 (Art. 5-1), it must at any given moment fall within the categories of arrest or detention set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of that Article (Eur. Court H.R. Winterwerp judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, para. 37).

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law: the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Winterwerp judgment, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, para. 46, Kemmache (no. 3) judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, p. 87, para.

• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  Nevertheless, it must be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the subsequent period of the applicant's detention on remand (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 37, para. 6; Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 41-42, para. 101; Foti and others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53; Pretto and others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 14, para. 30).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  Nevertheless, it must be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the subsequent period of the applicant's detention on remand (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 37, para. 6; Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 41-42, para. 101; Foti and others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53; Pretto and others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 14, para. 30).

 
• EKMR, 16.12.1987 - 10803/84

  F. c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  The Commission recalls that it is not necessary to justify detention on remand that the reality and nature of the charges laid against the prisoner should be definitely proved, since this is the purpose of the official powers of investigation, and detention is designed to allow this process to proceed unhindered (No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 120; No. 10803/84, Dec. 16.12.87, D.R. 54 p. 38).
• EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

  FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  Nevertheless, it must be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the subsequent period of the applicant's detention on remand (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 37, para. 6; Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 41-42, para. 101; Foti and others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53; Pretto and others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 14, para. 30).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  Nevertheless, it must be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the subsequent period of the applicant's detention on remand (cf. mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 37, para. 6; Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 41-42, para. 101; Foti and others judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53; Pretto and others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 14, para. 30).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  The persistence of reasonable suspicion is a conditio sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Letellier judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 18, para. 35).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law: the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Winterwerp judgment, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, para. 46, Kemmache (no. 3) judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, p. 87, para.
• EKMR, 04.07.1978 - 7742/76

  A.B. et SOCIETE A.S. c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  The Commission recalls that the Convention only governs, for each Contracting Party, facts subsequent to its entry into force with respect to that Party (cf. No. 7742/76, Dec. 4.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 146).
• EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 8118/77

  OMKARANANDA et DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 22172/93

  The Commission recalls that it is not necessary to justify detention on remand that the reality and nature of the charges laid against the prisoner should be definitely proved, since this is the purpose of the official powers of investigation, and detention is designed to allow this process to proceed unhindered (No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 120; No. 10803/84, Dec. 16.12.87, D.R. 54 p. 38).