Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.B. v. POLAND

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.B. v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 30028/06

  PIOTR OSUCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (tymczasowe aresztowanie) the grounds for its extension and release from detention are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006 and Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, §§ 22-24, 3 November 2009.

  As the fundamental right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention is at stake, the authorities must take as much care in setting an appropriate amount of bail as in deciding whether or not the continued detention is indispensable (see Piotr Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, §§ 39-40, 3 November 2009, Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 66, 15 November 2001, and also Skrobol v. Poland, no. 44165/98, § 57, 13 September 2005).

  Indeed, that Article lays down not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial" but also provides that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Piotr Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, § 47, 3 November 2009; and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  The Court observes 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 judgments (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, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  As to the complaint under Article 6 § 1, the Court notes that persons complaining about the length of proceedings before the Polish courts are required by Article 35 of the Convention to lodge a complaint about the breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted and supervised by a Prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postepowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postepowaniu sadowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwloki) (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.) no. 15212/03, 1 March 2005).

• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45219/06

  KAUCZOR v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  The relevant statistical data, recent amendments to the Code of Criminal procedure designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references to the relevant Council of Europe materials can be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Kauczor (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, §§ 27-28 and 30-35, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  As the fundamental right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention is at stake, the authorities must take as much care in setting an appropriate amount of bail as in deciding whether or not the continued detention is indispensable (see Piotr Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, §§ 39-40, 3 November 2009, Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 66, 15 November 2001, and also Skrobol v. Poland, no. 44165/98, § 57, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 44165/98

  SKROBOL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  As the fundamental right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention is at stake, the authorities must take as much care in setting an appropriate amount of bail as in deciding whether or not the continued detention is indispensable (see Piotr Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, §§ 39-40, 3 November 2009, Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 66, 15 November 2001, and also Skrobol v. Poland, no. 44165/98, § 57, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (tymczasowe aresztowanie) the grounds for its extension and release from detention are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006 and Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, §§ 22-24, 3 November 2009.
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 31330/02

  GOLEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 11887/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (tymczasowe aresztowanie) the grounds for its extension and release from detention are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006 and Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, §§ 22-24, 3 November 2009.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94

  TRZASKA AND 172 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  11887/07.
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 38510/06

  [ENG]

  The Court did not disqualify the presumption as incompatible per se with Article 5 § 3, but consistently stated that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of detention on remand (see, among others, Kankowski v. Poland, no. 10268/03, § 54, 4 October 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006; Kakol v. Poland, no. 3994/03, § 51, 6 September 2007; Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, § 58, 15 January 2008; Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, § 46, 3 February 2009; Jamrozy v. Poland, no. 6093/04, § 38, 15 September 2009; Jarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 23623/07, § 53, 6 July 2010; Finster v. Poland, no. 24860/08, § 40, 8 February 2011; Boguslaw Krawczak v. Poland, no. 24205/06, § 85, 31 May 2011; M.B. v. Poland, no. 11887/07, § 39, 26 July 2011; Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 79, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06

  YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA

  In the circumstances, the Court cannot accept that the authorities took the necessary care in fixing the appropriate amount of bail when deciding whether or not his continued detention was indispensable (compare Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 40, § 14, Series A no. 8; and M.B. v. Poland, no. 11887/07, § 41, 26 July 2011).