Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CÎRSTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-3 - Aussitôt traduit devant un juge ou autre magistrat);Non-violation de l'article 5+5-4 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-1 - Arrestation ou détention régulières) (Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CÎRSTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 42512/02

  MIHAIU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Elle note que, dans une série d'affaires dirigées contre l'État défendeur, les requérants, des journalistes, ont été condamnés au paiement de dommages et intérêts pour avoir nui à la réputation d'autrui (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Mihaiu c. Roumanie, no 42512/02, § 17, 4 novembre 2008, Marin c. Roumanie, no 30699/02, § 14, 3 février 2009, Dumitru c. Roumanie, no 4710/04, § 13, 1er juin 2010, Ieremeiov c. Roumanie (no 1), no 75300/01, § 15, 24 novembre 2009, et Bugan c. Roumanie, no 13824/06, §§ 11-13, 12 février 2013 ; voir aussi la jurisprudence présentée par le Gouvernement dans l'affaire Căşuneanu c. Roumanie, no 22018/10, § 41, 16 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 22016/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Comme il indique l'avoir également souligné dans ses observations faites dans l'affaire Costiniu c. Roumanie ((déc.), no 22016/10, 19 février 2013), il existait déjà de nombreuses actions fondées sur la responsabilité délictuelle par lesquelles les requérants se plaignaient d'avoir subi des atteintes à leur image.
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 75300/01

  IEREMEIOV (No. 1) AND 8 OTHER CASES AGAINST ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Elle note que, dans une série d'affaires dirigées contre l'État défendeur, les requérants, des journalistes, ont été condamnés au paiement de dommages et intérêts pour avoir nui à la réputation d'autrui (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Mihaiu c. Roumanie, no 42512/02, § 17, 4 novembre 2008, Marin c. Roumanie, no 30699/02, § 14, 3 février 2009, Dumitru c. Roumanie, no 4710/04, § 13, 1er juin 2010, Ieremeiov c. Roumanie (no 1), no 75300/01, § 15, 24 novembre 2009, et Bugan c. Roumanie, no 13824/06, §§ 11-13, 12 février 2013 ; voir aussi la jurisprudence présentée par le Gouvernement dans l'affaire Căşuneanu c. Roumanie, no 22018/10, § 41, 16 avril 2013).

• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 30699/02

  MARIN c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Elle note que, dans une série d'affaires dirigées contre l'État défendeur, les requérants, des journalistes, ont été condamnés au paiement de dommages et intérêts pour avoir nui à la réputation d'autrui (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Mihaiu c. Roumanie, no 42512/02, § 17, 4 novembre 2008, Marin c. Roumanie, no 30699/02, § 14, 3 février 2009, Dumitru c. Roumanie, no 4710/04, § 13, 1er juin 2010, Ieremeiov c. Roumanie (no 1), no 75300/01, § 15, 24 novembre 2009, et Bugan c. Roumanie, no 13824/06, §§ 11-13, 12 février 2013 ; voir aussi la jurisprudence présentée par le Gouvernement dans l'affaire Căşuneanu c. Roumanie, no 22018/10, § 41, 16 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 13824/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Elle note que, dans une série d'affaires dirigées contre l'État défendeur, les requérants, des journalistes, ont été condamnés au paiement de dommages et intérêts pour avoir nui à la réputation d'autrui (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Mihaiu c. Roumanie, no 42512/02, § 17, 4 novembre 2008, Marin c. Roumanie, no 30699/02, § 14, 3 février 2009, Dumitru c. Roumanie, no 4710/04, § 13, 1er juin 2010, Ieremeiov c. Roumanie (no 1), no 75300/01, § 15, 24 novembre 2009, et Bugan c. Roumanie, no 13824/06, §§ 11-13, 12 février 2013 ; voir aussi la jurisprudence présentée par le Gouvernement dans l'affaire Căşuneanu c. Roumanie, no 22018/10, § 41, 16 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits de la cause, la Cour estime que, dans les circonstances de l'affaire, il convient d'examiner les allégations de la requérante exclusivement sous l'angle de l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Radomilja et autres, précité, §§ 114 et 126, 20 mars 2018, et Von Hannover c. Allemagne (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 et 60641/08, § 96, CEDH 2012).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits de la cause, la Cour estime que, dans les circonstances de l'affaire, il convient d'examiner les allégations de la requérante exclusivement sous l'angle de l'article 5 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Radomilja et autres c. Croatie [GC], nos 37685/10 et 22768/12, §§ 114 et 126, 20 mars 2018, et Reinprecht c. Autriche, no 67175/01, §§ 47-55, CEDH 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle que même une période courte de détention doit être justifiée de manière convaincante par les autorités (Idalov c. Russie [GC], no 5826/03, § 140, 22 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 75109/01

  VIOREL BURZO c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Il ne peut pas être tributaire d'une demande formée au préalable par la personne détenue (Viorel Burzo c. Roumanie, nos 75109/01 et 12639/02, § 107, 30 juin 2009, et McKay c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 543/03, § 34, CEDH 2006-X).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 10626/11

  Il est aussi à noter que les tribunaux s'étant penchés ultérieurement sur la détention provisoire de la requérante n'ont pas non plus montré que l'élargissement de celle-ci troublerait réellement l'ordre public, se contentant de faire des appréciations d'ordre général et abstrait sur la notion d'ordre public et sur la nature de l'infraction imputée à la requérante (voir paragraphes 25 et 26 ci-dessus, ainsi que Smirnova c. Russie, nos 46133/99 et 48183/99, § 63, CEDH 2003-IX (extraits)).
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 80563/12

  NASTASE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 17689/03

  TIRON c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017), in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018), in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017), in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (see Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018 in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018, in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).