Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 30.03.2000

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,28703
EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,28703)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.10.2000 - 27785/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,28703)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Oktober 2000 - 27785/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,28703)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,28703) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    WLOCH c. POLOGNE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Exception préliminaire rejetée (abus de procédure) Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    WLOCH v. POLAND

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process) No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (122)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

  • EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

    HUBER c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    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 judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, §§ 84-87, ECHR 1999-I; Nikolova v. Bulgaria cited above, § 76; and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 89, 4 July 2000, unreported).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

    Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    They referred in this respect to the Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland judgment of 13 July 1983 (Series A no. 66, p. 14, § 36).
  • EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

    HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    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 judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, §§ 84-87, ECHR 1999-I; Nikolova v. Bulgaria cited above, § 76; and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 89, 4 July 2000, unreported).
     
  • EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

    NIEDBALA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    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 judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, §§ 84-87, ECHR 1999-I; Nikolova v. Bulgaria cited above, § 76; and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 89, 4 July 2000, unreported).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    As regards the claim for alleged damage suffered as a result of a 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, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

    DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    As regards the claim for alleged damage suffered as a result of a 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, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

    KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    Where the Convention refers directly back to domestic law, as in Article 5, compliance with such law is an integral part of the obligations of the Contracting States and the Court is accordingly competent to satisfy itself of such compliance where relevant; the scope of its task in this connection, however, is subject to limits inherent in the logic of the European system of protection, since it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, inter alia, the Lukanov judgment cited above, ibid., and the Kemmache v. France (no. 3) judgment of 24 November 1994, Series A no. 296-C, p. 88, § 42).
  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

    DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    The Court first recalls that in criminal matters, the "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 § 1 begins to run as soon as a person is "charged"; this may occur on a date prior to the case coming before the trial court (see, for example, the Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 22, § 42), such as the date of arrest, the date when the person concerned was officially notified that he would be prosecuted, or the date when preliminary investigations were opened (see the Wemhoff v. Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 26-27, § 19; the Neumeister v. Austria judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 41, § 18; and the Ringeisen v. Austria judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 45, § 110).
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
    A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of his having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

    MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

    CIULLA v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

    RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

    BOZANO v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

    Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

    LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

    A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Although it is not always necessary that an Article 5 § 4 procedure be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the type of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for example, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, § 57, Series A no. 33; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, §§ 57 and 60, Series A no. 129; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005).
  • EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

    Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

    The Court further reiterates that a person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; W?‚och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).
  • EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 16538/17

    Türkei wegen Haft für Journalisten verurteilt

    The Court further reiterates that a person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him or her before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI; and Poyraz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 21235/11, § 53, 17 February 2015).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.03.2000 - 27785/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,36239
EGMR, 30.03.2000 - 27785/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,36239)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.03.2000 - 27785/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,36239)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. März 2000 - 27785/95 (https://dejure.org/2000,36239)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,36239) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

    ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2000 - 27785/95
    The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence is binding not only upon a judge or court but also upon other public authorities (see, the Allenet de Ribemont v. France judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 17, §§ 38 and 41).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht