Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OWSIK v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  The Court recalls that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  DROZDOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial", as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgements (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004 and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 97, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  In particular, it considered that it was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004 and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 97, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99

  KWIEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  For a more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions, see the Court's judgments in Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 33, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 23, 30 May 2006.
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 57477/00

  MALIK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 10381/04

  The applicant was convicted of having stolen one "Bosh" tool worth approximately EUR 60, of having uttered threats against his neighbour and of having destroyed her letter box and a door frame causing damage of approximately EUR 60. Those offences, although punishable by law and committed following the applicant's relapse into crime, can hardly be considered violent crimes or as giving rise to particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and the courts to determine the facts, mount a case against the perpetrator and reach a conclusion (see Malik v. Poland, no. 57477/00, § 49, 4 April 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI ET 57 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  10381/04.
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 39842/05

  DYLLER v. POLAND

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 97, 4 October 2005; and Owsik v. Poland, no. 10381/04, § 34, 16 October 2007).