Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FINSTER v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 6-2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  More recent developments are described in the decision given by the Court in the case of Latak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).

  They raised a preliminary objection similar to that relied on in the case of Latak v. Poland (see Latak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 63-64).

• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among many other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36 and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-... ).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among many other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36 and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-... ).

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  The Court notes that persons complaining about the length of proceedings before the Polish courts are required by Article 35 of the Convention to lodge a complaint about the breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted and supervised by a Prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postepowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postepowaniu sadowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwloki) (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.) no. 15212/03, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 23037/04

  MATIJASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  A premature expression of such an opinion by the tribunal itself will inevitably run foul of the said presumption (see, among many other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, §§ 27, 30 and 37; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36 and Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 45, ECHR 2006-... ).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  The Court emphasises that there is a fundamental distinction to be made between a statement that someone is merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear judicial declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that the individual has committed the crime in question (see, Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 71, 6 February 2007, Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 89, 27 February 2007; Wojciechowski v. Poland, no. 5422/04, § 54, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 45219/06

  KAUCZOR v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  The relevant statistical data, recent amendments to the Code of Criminal procedure designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references to the relevant Council of Europe materials can be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Kauczor (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, § 27-28 and 30-35, 3 February 2009).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are presented in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04

  ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 24860/08

  A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that conditions of their detention are inadequate are set out in the Court's pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively).
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 30848/03

  BRONK c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 24.11.2009 - 8456/08

  ZURAWSKI v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.09.2013 - 14348/02

  AFFAIRES GARYCKI ET FINSTER CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 8 February 2011, final on 8 May 2011).

  Finster, Application No. 24860/08, judgment of 08/02/2011, final on 08/05/2011.

• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 38510/06

  [ENG]

  The Court did not disqualify the presumption as incompatible per se with Article 5 § 3, but consistently stated that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of detention on remand (see, among others, Kankowski v. Poland, no. 10268/03, § 54, 4 October 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006; Kakol v. Poland, no. 3994/03, § 51, 6 September 2007; Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, § 58, 15 January 2008; Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, § 46, 3 February 2009; Jamrozy v. Poland, no. 6093/04, § 38, 15 September 2009; Jarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 23623/07, § 53, 6 July 2010; Finster v. Poland, no. 24860/08, § 40, 8 February 2011; Boguslaw Krawczak v. Poland, no. 24205/06, § 85, 31 May 2011; M.B. v. Poland, no. 11887/07, § 39, 26 July 2011; Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 79, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 18232/11

  VAKHITOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  The Court emphasises that there can be no justification for a court of law to make a premature pronouncement of this kind (see Finster v. Poland, no. 24860/08, §§ 51-55, 8 February 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 62076/11

  CHOJNACKI c. POLOGNE

  La Cour rappelle avoir dit dans l'arrêt Finster c. Pologne (no 24860/08, § 54, 8 février 2011), analogue à la présente cause, que les questions sur lesquelles portait l'affaire étaient distinctes de celles de l'arrêt précité Mirosław Garlicki.