Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,20738
EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,20738)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.06.2018 - 21786/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,20738)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juni 2018 - 21786/15 (https://dejure.org/2018,20738)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,20738) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (29)Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

    RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    Should the efforts made by the Government to tackle the underlying Convention problem prove to be insufficient, the Court may reassess the need to apply the pilot-judgment procedure to this type of cases (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, §§ 203-06, 219 et passim, 7 July 2015; Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, §§ 32-33 and 35, 16 July 2015, and Novruk and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11

    NOVRUK v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    31039/11 and 4 others, § 135, 15 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 62631/11

    GAL v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    The Court notes that since the adoption of the Committee of Ministers' Resolution in 2011 in respect of the execution of four cases against Hungary concerning the length of detention on remand, in a number of similar cases in recent years it has held that the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend pre-trial detention were not relevant and sufficient to justify an applicant's continued detention, and that the authorities had failed to envisage the possibility of imposing other preventive measures expressly foreseen by the Hungarian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings (see, among many other examples, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, § 67, 5 July 2016; Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, § 47, 11 March 2014; Baksza v. Hungary, no. 59196/08, § 38, 23 April 2013; and Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 56 and 58, 23 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 50130/12

    BANDUR v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    The Court notes that since the adoption of the Committee of Ministers' Resolution in 2011 in respect of the execution of four cases against Hungary concerning the length of detention on remand, in a number of similar cases in recent years it has held that the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend pre-trial detention were not relevant and sufficient to justify an applicant's continued detention, and that the authorities had failed to envisage the possibility of imposing other preventive measures expressly foreseen by the Hungarian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings (see, among many other examples, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, § 67, 5 July 2016; Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, § 47, 11 March 2014; Baksza v. Hungary, no. 59196/08, § 38, 23 April 2013; and Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 56 and 58, 23 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

    HAGYO v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    The Court notes that since the adoption of the Committee of Ministers' Resolution in 2011 in respect of the execution of four cases against Hungary concerning the length of detention on remand, in a number of similar cases in recent years it has held that the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend pre-trial detention were not relevant and sufficient to justify an applicant's continued detention, and that the authorities had failed to envisage the possibility of imposing other preventive measures expressly foreseen by the Hungarian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings (see, among many other examples, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, § 67, 5 July 2016; Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, § 47, 11 March 2014; Baksza v. Hungary, no. 59196/08, § 38, 23 April 2013; and Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 56 and 58, 23 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 59196/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    The Court notes that since the adoption of the Committee of Ministers' Resolution in 2011 in respect of the execution of four cases against Hungary concerning the length of detention on remand, in a number of similar cases in recent years it has held that the reasons relied upon by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend pre-trial detention were not relevant and sufficient to justify an applicant's continued detention, and that the authorities had failed to envisage the possibility of imposing other preventive measures expressly foreseen by the Hungarian law to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings (see, among many other examples, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, § 67, 5 July 2016; Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, § 47, 11 March 2014; Baksza v. Hungary, no. 59196/08, § 38, 23 April 2013; and Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 56 and 58, 23 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

    Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil that obligation, the Court may seek to indicate the type of general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski, cited above, § 194).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

    CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil that obligation, the Court may seek to indicate the type of general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski, cited above, § 194).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    However, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil that obligation, the Court may seek to indicate the type of general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2014; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 254-55, ECHR 2012; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, 17 September 2009; and Broniowski, cited above, § 194).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15
    Furthermore, when deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (see, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 629/11

    ARA HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

    DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

    GÁBOR NAGY v. HUNGARY

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 14807/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 30.01.2025 - 51567/14

    Giftmüll im "Land der Feuer": Italien hat zu wenig gegen die Ökomafia getan

    Rn. 477 Relying on Lakatos v. Hungary (no. 21786/15, §§ 88-91, 26 June 2018), the Government argued that where a defendant State had already taken measures to remedy the applicants' complaints, the Court has ruled out application of the pilot-judgment procedure.
  • EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 7869/25
    Even taking into account that the prosecution concerned the suspicion of involvement in a complex murder case and other offences, the Court considers it a substantial period of time (compare Maglódi v. Hungary, no. 30103/02, § 32, 9 November 2004; Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 66, 11 April 2017; and Lakatos v. Hungary, no. 21786/15, § 56, 26 June 2018; see also, for illustrative purposes, Somogyi v. Hungary [Committee], no. 43411/12, § 28, 17 October 2017).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 57325/19

    JANAKIESKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

    The relevant parts can be found in Lakatos v. Hungary (no. 21786/15, § 37, 26 June 2018).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht