Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SLUSARCZYK v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) No ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Slusarczyk v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (31)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  The Court notes at the outset, that contrary to the case of Idalov (Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012) the applicant's detention on remand did not constitute multiple periods of pre-trial detention applied in one set of criminal proceedings, but the applicant was detained on remand in three, partially overlapping, sets of criminal proceedings against him, concerning different charges.
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 26307/95

  Entscheidung der Großen Kammer über die an sie nach Art. 43 Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  To this end, the Court examined carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 m² of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no.25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).

• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  To this end, the Court examined carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03).
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 m² of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no.25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  In this respect the Court notes that while in the first set of the proceedings the applicant was charged with a series of offences committed together with two co-accused, he was not charged with being a member of an organised criminal group (see a contrario Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 57, 16 January 2007) (see paragraph 9 above).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  In its previous cases where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 m² of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no.25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Andrey Frolov v. Russia, no. 205/02, §§ 47-49, 29 March 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  In this respect the Court points out that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a respondent Government have not made a preliminary objection based on that rule (see Marchowski v. Poland, no.10273/02, § 48, 8 July 2008, and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03

  PISK-PISKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  The Court has already held in many previous similar cases that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees" letters with the "censored" stamp, it has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003; Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006; and Friedensberg v. Poland, no. 44025/08, 27 April 2010, § 36, and Piechowicz, cited above, § 234).
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 37641/97

  MATWIEJCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  The Court has already held in many previous similar cases that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees" letters with the "censored" stamp, it has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003; Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006; and Friedensberg v. Poland, no. 44025/08, 27 April 2010, § 36, and Piechowicz, cited above, § 234).
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99

  KWIEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 45705/07

  D.G. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 21880/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 43837/06

  MISIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 6200/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 23623/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 44025/08

  FRIEDENSBERG v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05

  MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 34907/05

  HINCZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 31.05.2012 - 18364/06

  GRZYWACZEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 32798/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 37775/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04

  ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  BISTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  KLIZA v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 7334/13

  MURSIC v. CROATIA

  This will, however, hardly occur in the context of flagrant lack of personal space (see, for example, Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 31-32; Logothetis and Others v. Greece, no. 740/13, § 41, 25 September 2014; and Nikolaos Athanasiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36546/10, § 77, 23 October 2014), confinement in an altogether inappropriate detention facility (see, for example, A.F. v. Greece, no. 53709/11, §§ 71-80, 13 June 2013; Horshill v. Greece, no. 70427/11, §§ 47-52, 1 August 2013; and T. and A., cited above, § 96) or in the case of established structural problems in prisons (see, for example, Khuroshvili v. Greece, no. 58165/10, §§ 84-89, 12 December 2013; Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, §§ 64-65, 6 March 2014; and Slusarczyk v. Poland, no. 23463/04, §§ 136-140, 28 October 201).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND

  Consequently, these periods of his detention fall outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudła, cited above, § 104, and Ślusarczyk v. Poland, no. 23463/04, §§ 146 and 147, 28 October 2014).
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 13621/08

  HORYCH ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  23463/04.

• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 53865/11

  KUSHCH v. UKRAINE

  The Court accepts that a reasonable suspicion against an applicant of having committed a serious offence, as well as the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, in particular the process of obtaining evidence from witnesses, constitute a valid ground for the applicant's initial detention (see Ślusarczyk v. Poland, no. 23463/04, § 156, 28 October 2014).
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 39052/18

  WARDASZKO v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the infringement of the prisoners' rights to confidentiality of the correspondence with their lawyers (see, for example, Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, §§ 232-240, 17 April 2012; Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, § 138-151, 12 February 2013; Ślusarczyk v. Poland, no. 23463/04, §§ 181-185, 28 October 2014; and Porowski v. Poland, no. 34458/03, §§ 166-172, 21 March 2017).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 52683/15

  ZAGALSKI v. POLAND

  Therefore, with the passage of time, the grounds relied on became less relevant and cannot justify the entire period of over three years and six months for which the most serious preventive measure against the applicant was imposed (see Ślusarczyk v. Poland, no. 23463/04, § 156, 28 October 2014).