Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  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)

  Mierzejewski v. Poland

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 15612/13

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006.

  The Court notes 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; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-...; and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).

• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 15612/13

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006.
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 15612/13

  The Court notes 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; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-...; and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 62663/13

  SCENSNOVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  The Government furthermore argued that in cases concerning serious criminal acts the Court had found no violation of Article 5 § 3 when detention on remand had lasted over three years (see Wrona v. Poland, no. 23119/05, 5 January 2010; Simonov v. Poland [Committee], no. 45255/07, 17 April 2012; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, 24 February 2015; and Gawrecki v. Poland [Committee], no. 56713/09, 14 April 2015).
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 40448/15

  LIPIEC v. POLAND

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  The Government submitted that in cases concerning organised crime the Court had found no violation of Article 5 when detention on remand had lasted over three years (see Wrona v. Poland, no. 23119/05, 5 January 2010; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, 26 March 2013; and Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, 24 February 2015).

• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 46, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015 and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 147, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  GÁBOR NAGY v. HUNGARY

  The Court acknowledges that attempts to obstruct the proceedings by other members of a criminal group might have constituted well-founded grounds for the authorities to increase their vigilance when examining the grounds for the applicant's continuous detention (see Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 43, 24 February 2015).
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 38539/18

  D.?�. v. POLAND

  The Court recalls that in cases involving the alleged membership in an organised criminal group, continuous control and limitation of the defendant's contact with other members of the group and with other persons may be essential to avoid him absconding, tampering with evidence and, most importantly, influencing or even threatening witnesses (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 46, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015; and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 147, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 17864/18

  GARSKI v. POLAND

  It therefore remains to be ascertained whether the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Nowak v. Poland, cited above, §§ 37-38, and Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, §§ 44-45, 24 February 2015).
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 19445/10

  LEJK v. POLAND

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015).
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 25875/11

  LIPNICKI v. POLAND

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015).
• EGMR, 21.04.2020 - 28085/16

  ANDRUSZKIEWICZ AND FLUDERSKI v. POLAND

  Also, the need to obtain voluminous evidence and to determine the degree of the alleged responsibility of each of the defendants, who had allegedly acted as a criminal group and against whom numerous charges of serious offences were laid, constituted valid grounds for the applicants' initial detention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 38, 24 February 2015, Rambiert v. Poland, no. 34322/10, § 31, 10 March 2015; and Wrona v. Poland, no. 29345/09, § 35, 10 March 2015).