Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERCEP v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MERCEP v. CROATIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  (2) the risk of reoffending, based on the seriousness, nature and number of the charges against the applicant, his alleged leading role in the criminal organisation, his prior convictions, and the allegation that criminal activity had been his main source of income (see also Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 96, 26 April 2016; compare with Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 95, 1 December 2015);.

  In Merčep v. Croatia (no. 12301/12, 26 April 2016) the investigation also involved an "international element", as "the investigating judge... requested international legal assistance from the Serbian authorities in obtaining evidence from the witnesses" (§ 11).

• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 58444/15

  GRUBNYK v. UKRAINE

  Contrary to the situation in the cases cited in paragraph 116 above, in the present case the domestic courts had the power to review the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the defendant, examine the evidence in this respect and order his release if they considered that no reasonable suspicion was shown in respect of the charges brought against him (see, for an example of a similar situation in Croatia, Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 102, 26 April 2016) or if they considered that there were no risks justifying detention (see paragraphs 43 and 54 to 56 above).
• EGMR, 23.07.2026 - 39465/23
  Rn. 58 The Government submitted that the Court had already established that in some instances concerning particularly serious crimes, the nature and gravity of the charges against a defendant was a factor weighing heavily against his or her release and in favour of remanding him or her in custody (see Mercep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, 26 April 2016).

• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  With particular regard to the risk that the suspect, if released, would reoffend, consideration must be given to, inter alia, the nature and seriousness of the charges against a defendant, his or her criminal record, and his or her character or behaviour that would indicate that he or she presented such a risk (see, for instance, Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 96, 26 April 2016; Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 95, 1 December 2015; and Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 629/11

  ARA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Arguments for and against release must not be general and abstract (see, among other authorities, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, § 56, 4 October 2005; Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, § 92, 26 June 2012; Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 11948/08, § 57, 20 February 2014; and Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 79, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  With particular regard to the risk that the suspect, if released, would reoffend, consideration must be given to, inter alia, the nature and seriousness of the charges against a defendant, his or her criminal record, and his or her character or behaviour that would indicate that he or she presented such a risk (see, for instance, Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 96, 26 April 2016, Šoš v. Croatia, no. 26211/13, § 95, 1 December 2015 and Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 47934/17

  DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 9 As regards the alleged risk of pressure on the victim, the Court has previously accepted that such a risk may exist at the early stages of the proceedings but diminishes as they progress and statements are taken (see Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 89, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The preservation of a threat to public order is commonly seen as a legitimate ground for detention and is as such accepted in the Court's case-law (see, Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 104, 26 April 2016, with references to Peša v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 101, 8 April 2010 and J.M. v. Denmark, cited above § 62, as examples of cases where the preservation of the public's sense of justice was in issue).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 56998/16

  VELECKA v. LITHUANIA and 3 other applications

  The Court also accepts that the investigation was additionally complicated by the need to obtain evidence from abroad, since the criminal organisation had operated in a number of countries (see Łaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, § 61, 15 January 2008; Ereren v. Germany, no. 67522/09, § 62, 6 November 2014; Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 110, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 16031/18

  AREWA v. LITHUANIA

  In its case-law under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court has recognised that the need to obtain evidence from many sources, including from abroad, and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects, constitutes relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicants' detention during the period necessary to terminate the investigation (see Łaszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, § 59, 15 January 2008, and Merčep v. Croatia, no. 12301/12, § 110, 26 April 2016).
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 52048/16

  HYSA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 44286/12

  BADALYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2025 - 37327/21

  OLIYNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 50520/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 48073/13

  KOVESHNIKOV v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 3649/16

  LEONOVA v. UKRAINE