Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VRENCEV v. SERBIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 5-1-c Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05
• EGMR, 14.02.2018 - 2361/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  This form of detention can only be justified in a given case 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 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, p. 36, § 65, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, § 4), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending trial.

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see, among many other authorities, Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 753, § 41; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp, cited above § 37; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  The detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is justified only as a last resort where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest (see, in the context of Article 5 § 1 (b), (d) and (e), Saadi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 67-72; Witold Litwa, cited above, § 78; Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, § 51, 8 June 2004; Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 44, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or to continue to be deprived, of their liberty (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 22, § 40), save in accordance with the conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 5.
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  A period of detention is, in principle, "lawful" if it is based on a court order and even flaws in the detention order do not necessarily render the underlying period of detention unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see, Benham, cited above, pp. 753-54, §§ 42-47; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  Concerning the Government's submission that the applicant should have filed a civil claim based on Article 200 of the Obligations Act, the Court notes that the rights guaranteed under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4, are to be distinguished from the right to receive compensation for a violation thereof, which is why a civil action for damages cannot be deemed effective as regards the applicant's complaints (see, among many other authorities, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; Pavletic v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 39359/98, ECHR 13 May 2005; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 273-B, § 24).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings at issue (see, amongst other authorities, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35; YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 50).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98

  DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI ET 57 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
• EGMR, 08.06.2004 - 40905/98

  HILDA HAFSTEINSDOTTIR v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE
• EuGH - 29/78 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Delfino / Kommission
• EuGH, 16.08.1989 - 57/89

  Vorläufiger Rechtsschutz - Einstweilige Anordnungen - Voraussetzungen - …
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA
• LG Aschaffenburg, 28.07.1989 - T 25/89
• EuGH - 42/77 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Agrico / Kommission

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen