Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARYCKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-2 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 14348/02
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02
• EGMR, 11.09.2013 - 14348/02

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (tymczasowe aresztowanie), 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.

  In these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that the instant case presented particular difficulties for the investigation authorities and for the courts to determine the facts and mount a case against the perpetrators as would undoubtedly have been the case had the proceedings concerned organised crime (see Celejewski v Poland, no. 17584/04, § 37, 4 May 2006).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  As from that date he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (cf. Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).

  Continued detention therefore can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110-111 with further references, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 26.03.1982 - 8269/78

  Adolf ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  Nevertheless, whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see, inter alia, Adolf v. Austria, judgment of 26 March 1982, Series A no. 49, pp. 17-19, §§ 36-41 and Daktaras, cited above, § 41).
• EGMR, 26.03.2002 - 48297/99

  BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  However, this circumstance could not justify any use of words chosen by the officials in their interviews with the press (see Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 50, ECHR 2002-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56; Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36; Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2000-X and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 13425/02

  MICHTA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  The Government maintained that a cassation appeal may be lodged by a party alleging a flagrant breach of any substantive or procedural provision of criminal law capable of affecting the substance of the judgment (cf. Kucharski v. Poland (dec.), no. 51521/99, 16 October 2003 and Michta v. Poland (dec.), no. 13425/02, 23 March 2004).
• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 6569/04

  ARRIGO AND VELLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02

  The Court has considered that in a democratic society it is inevitable that information is imparted when a serious charge of misconduct in office is brought (see Arrigo and Vella v. Malta (dec.), no. 6569/04, 10 May 2005).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 51521/99

  KUCHARSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 28904/02

  GORSKI v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45219/06

  KAUCZOR v. POLAND

  In so far as the domestic courts appear to have drawn adverse inferences from the fact that the applicant had not pleaded guilty, the Court considers that their reasoning showed a manifest disregard for the principle of the presumption of innocence and cannot, in any circumstances, be relied on as a legitimate ground for deprivation of the applicant's liberty (see Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 48, 6 February 2007 and Górski v. Poland, no. 28904/02, § 58, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 11287/03

  LELIEVRE c. BELGIQUE

  La Cour a utilisé cette approche à maintes reprises (cf. Ganchev c. Bulgarie, no 57855/00, § 38, 12 juillet 2007 ; Garycki c. Pologne, no 14348/02, § 80, 6 mai 2007 ; Trzaska c. Pologne, no 25792/94, § 97, 11 juillet 2000 ; Stephen Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 30280/96, § 39, 14 mars 2000).
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 13275/03

  MIHUTA c. ROUMANIE

  Certes, les besoins de préserver l'ordre public et d'assurer un bon déroulement de l'enquête ont déjà été reconnus par la Cour comme un motif pouvant justifier la continuation d'une privation de liberté (Letellier c. France, arrêt du 26 juin 1991, série A no 207, p. 19, § 39 et mutatis mutandis, Garycki c. Pologne, no 14348/02, § 48, 6 février 2007).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 25928/07

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001; Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 47, 6 February 2007).