Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 07.07.1997 - 27915/95
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  The Government recalled that the control over correspondence of detained persons was not in itself incompatible with the Convention (the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 38, § 98).

  The Court considers that there was "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence, which is guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 8. Such an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28; Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).

• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  They relied on the judgments given by the Court in the cases Schiesser v. Switzerland (judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, pp. 12-13, §§ 27-31) and Pauwels v. Belgium (judgment of 26 May 1988, Series A no. 135, p. 18, § 38).

  Before an "officer" can be said to exercise "judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, pp. 13-14, § 31).

• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  The applicant referred in this connection to the Court's established case-law, in which emphasis had been laid on the importance of respect for the confidentiality of correspondence of prisoners with the European Commission of Human Rights since it could concern allegations against the prison authorities or prison officials (the Campbell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, s. 22, § 62).

  The Court considers that there was "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence, which is guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 8. Such an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1775, § 28; Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  As regards the claim for the alleged damage suffered as a result of violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 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 cited above, p. 29, § 65).
• EGMR, 13.07.1983 - 8737/79

  Zimmermann und Steiner ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  They relied in this respect on the Zimmerman and Steiner v. Switzerland judgment of 13 July 1983 (Series A no. 66, p. 35, § 36).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  The Court further reiterates that the judicial control of the detention must be automatic (see the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 24, § 51).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation (see the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22), it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question.
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality are capable of appearing open to doubt (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality are capable of appearing open to doubt (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

  KAMPANIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the above-mentioned Schiesser judgment, p. 13, §§ 30-31, the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  The detainee should also have an opportunity to comment on the arguments put forward by the prosecution (see Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 67, 4 July 2000).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  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, 21.01.2003 - 37444/97

  BAGINSKI v. POLAND

  The Court, having regard to the criteria established in its case-law in respect of a "judge" or "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 and, more particularly, to its judgment in the case of Niedbala v. Poland, (no. 27915/95, §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000, unreported), considers that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

  The Court, having regard to the criteria established in its case-law in respect of the procedural requirements of Article 5 § 4 and, more particularly, to its judgments in the cases of Niedbala v. Poland (no. 27915/95, §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000) and Wloch v. Poland (no. 27785/95, §§ 125-132; 19 October 2000, ECHR-2000-X), considers that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 33866/96

  BOGULAK v. POLAND

  The Court, having regard to the criteria established in its case-law in respect of a "judge" or "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 and, more particularly, to its judgments in the cases of Niedbala v. Poland (no. 27915/95, §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000) and Dacewicz v. Poland (no. 34611/97, §§ 21-23, 2 July 2002) considers that the examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

  The Court, having regard to the criteria established in its case-law in respect of the procedural requirements of Article 5 § 4 and, more particularly, to its judgments in the cases of Niedbala v. Poland (no. 27915/95, §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000) and Wloch v. Poland (no. 27785/95, §§ 125-132; 19 October 2000, ECHR-2000-X), considers that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  The detainee should also have an opportunity to comment on the arguments put forward by the prosecution (see Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 67, 4 July 2000).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 29687/96

  WESOLOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  44-45, § 9, Huber c. Suisse du 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, p. 19, § 46, Toth c. Autriche du 12 décembre 1991, série A no 224, p. 24, § 91, Kampanis précité, p. 49, § 66, Hood c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27267/95, §§ 84-87, CEDH 1999-I, Nikolova précité, § 76, et Niedbala c. Pologne, no 27915/95, § 89, 4 juillet 2000).
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 38668/97

  CISZEWSKI c. POLOGNE

  44-45, § 9, Huber c. Suisse du 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, p. 19, § 46, Toth c. Autriche du 12 décembre 1991, série A no 224, p. 24, § 91, Kampanis c. Grèce du 13 juillet 1995, série A no 318, p. 49, § 66, Hood c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27267/95, §§ 84-87, CEDH 1999-I, Nikolova c. Bulgarie du 25 mars 1999, § 76, CEDH 1999-II, et Niedbala c. Pologne, no 27915/95, § 89, 4 juillet 2000).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 20723/02

  OSVATH v. HUNGARY

  In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant did not receive the benefit of a procedure that was really adversarial (cf. Nikolova v. Bulgaria, no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II, § 63, Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, judgment of 4 Jul 2000, and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, judgment of 26 July 2001).