Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,45246) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIGON v. POLAND
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
- EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62
Stögmüller ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
The persistence of reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention (see the Stögmüller v. Austria judgment of 10 November 1969, Series A no. 9, p. 40, § 4), but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices; the Court must then establish whether the other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty. - EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63
Neumeister ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia, the Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 37, §§ 4-5). - EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
W. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
Where such grounds are "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see the W. v. Switzerland judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30). - EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83
LAMY c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
It was true that the domestic law at that time allowed the prosecutor to refuse access to the case-file until the end of the investigations, but this very regulation ran counter to the requirements of the Convention, in particular those formulated by the Court in its Lamy v. Belgium judgment of 30 March 1989 (Series A no. 151).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,37862) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIGON v. POLAND
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 24244/94
- EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83
LAMY c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
However, that very regulation ran counter to the requirements of the Convention, in particular those formulated by the Court in its Lamy v. Belgium judgment of 30 March 1989 (Series A no. 151).More specifically, the Court reiterates that a certain degree of access to the case-file, if only to such an extent as to afford the detainee an opportunity of effectively challenging evidence on which his detention was based, may in certain instances be envisaged in proceedings concerning review of the lawfulness of detention on remand (see the Lamy v. Belgium judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29).
- EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40). - EGMR, 31.01.2002 - 24430/94
LANZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40).
- EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87
HUBER c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
44-45, § 9; the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 19, § 46; the Toth v. Austria judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224, p. 24, § 91; the Kampanis v. Greece judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; Hood v. the United Kingdom [G.C.], no 27267/95, 18.02.1999, §§ 84-87; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria cited above, § 76; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 89). - EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
As regards the claim for the alleged damage suffered as a result of the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has made modest awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 29, § 65). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
KAMPANIS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40). - EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88
IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
According to the Court's case-law, it follows from the wording of Article 6 - and particularly from the autonomous meaning to be given to the notion of "criminal charge" - that this provision can be applied to pre-trial proceedings (see the Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36). - EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40). - EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
Thus, the proceedings must be adversarial and must adequately ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained (see the following judgments: Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 24, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [G.C.], application no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, § 78, 11 July 2000, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, § 103; Lanz v. Austria, no. 24430/94, 31 January 2002, § 40). - EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
As regards the claim for the alleged damage suffered as a result of the violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has made modest awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 29, § 65).
- EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99
H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Tout en observant que le requérant n'a pas soumis de note d'honoraires s'agissant du Queen's Counsel (Ciborek c. Pologne, no 52037/99, § 63, 4 novembre 2003), la Cour reconnaît que le requérant a dû avoir des frais à cet égard puisque cet avocat a assisté et plaidé à l'audience de Strasbourg (Migon c. Pologne, no 24244/94, § 95, 25 juin 2002). - EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 29687/96
WESOLOWSKI c. POLOGNE
Pour déterminer si une procédure offre les « garanties fondamentales de procédure appliquées en matière de privation de liberté ", il faut avoir égard à la nature particulière des circonstances dans lesquelles elle se déroule (voir, entre autres, l'arrêt Megyeri c. Allemagne du 12 mai 1992, série A no 237-A, pp. 11-12, § 22 ; Migon c. Pologne, no 24244/94, arrêt du 25 juin 2002 ; Wloch c. Pologne arrêt du 19 octobre 2000, CEDH 2000-XI, § 125). - EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03
LASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND
While national law may satisfy this requirement in various ways, whatever method is chosen should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment thereon (see, Lietzow cited above, Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I and Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 79, 25 June 2002). - EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 34579/05
A. J. HADJIHANNA BROS (TOURIST ENTERPRISES) LTD. & HADJIHANNAS v. CYPRUS
Even though the applicants have not submitted any documentary evidence of the expenses incurred in the proceedings before the Court, the Court acknowledges that they must have incurred certain expenses in those proceedings, particularly since they were represented by a lawyer (see Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 95, 25 June 2002, and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 152). - EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 9013/02
SWIERZKO c. POLOGNE
Comme j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de l'exprimer précédemment (Migon c. Pologne, no 24244/94, 25 juin 2002 et Kingsley c. Royaume Uni [GC], no 35605/97, CEDH 2002-IV entre autres), lorsque la Cour conclut à la violation d'une des dispositions de la Convention et que le droit interne ne permet d'effacer qu'imparfaitement les conséquences d'une telle violation - condition requise part l'article 41- l'octroi d'une satisfaction équitable en réparation du dommage moral devrait être la règle et la décision que le simple constat de violation représente en soi une satisfaction équitable devrait être l'exception.