Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA and 3 other applications

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• SG Berlin, 14.09.1955 - 15/12

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  15/12/2020.
• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit Hooligans

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  Rn. 17 The applicants did not raise any arguments as to whether the domestic authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, for example, S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 77, 22 October 2018) at the domestic level or before the Court and it accepts the Government's submissions that the proceedings were particularly complex, that their duration was influenced by the applicants' conduct, and that no inactivity attributable to the authorities could be identified (see also Štvrtecký, cited above, §§ 67-71).
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  6097/16 and 28999/19, § 178, 20 April 2021), the Court concludes that the constitutional proceedings leading to the decisions of 10 September 2020 and 18 March 2021 fell short of the requirement of speediness.

• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7711/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  The right to proceedings by which the lawfulness of detention was to be decided speedily is applicable to those proceedings (see Žúbor v. Slovakia, no. 7711/06, § 77, 6 December 2011).
• RG, 09.02.1921 - I 337/20

  Lieferscheine; Orderpapiere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  Rn. 4 In the present case, relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicants complained about the length of their detention in the context of their original trial and contested its justification, as those matters had been addressed in the Constitutional Court's decisions of 13 May 2020, case no. IV. US 171/20 (application no. 55788/20), 7 July 2020, case no. II. US 337/20 (application no. 8058/21), 10 September 2020, case no. II. US 381/20, and 18 March 2021, case no. II. US 129/21 (applications nos. 22074/21 and 21850/21).
• EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 43674/16

  RADONJIC AND ROMIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  Rn. 22 The constitutional proceedings under review started with the lodging of the applicants' respective constitutional complaints and ended with the service of the respective decisions on them (see Radonjić and Romić v. Serbia, no. 43674/16, § 97, 4 April 2023).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  Rn. 16 All in all, the Court has no difficulty in accepting that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicants and that the reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicants' continued detention were "relevant" and "sufficient" within the meaning of its case-law (see also Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, §§ 57-66, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 40132/16

  SALMANOV v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  Rn. 21 However, the facts of the case do not support the proposition that the judgment of 25 September 2020 convicting the applicants entailed any examination of the lawfulness of their detention in connection with their applications for release that had been dismissed on 30 September 2019 and 24 July 2020 or the applicants' respective interlocutory appeals against those decisions (see Salmanov v. Slovakia, no. 40132/16, § 65, 20 January 2022, with a further reference).
• EGMR, 07.06.2017 - 36997/08

  CERNÁK AGAINST SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  Rn. 29 The Court notes that the written version of the contested decision was served on the first applicant on 23 January 2020, in good time for him to be able to contest it with full knowledge of the reasoning behind it (contrast Černák v. Slovakia, no. 36997/08, § 82, 17 December 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.03.2025 - 59217/21

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  It was based on his suspected involvement in extensive and particularly serious drug-trafficking offences (see Krátky v. Slovakia [Committee], no. 55788/20 and 3 others, §§ 8-18, 25 April 2024).