Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 28481/03
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 28481/03

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 47414/99

  SZOTT-MEDYNSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  She submitted that the constitutional complaint in her case did not satisfy the two-tier test of effectiveness established in the case of Szott-Medynska v. Poland (no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003).

  The Court recalls that it has already dealt with the question of the effectiveness of the constitutional complaint in Poland (see, Szott- Medynska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003, and subsequently Pachla v. Poland (dec.), no. 8812/02, 8 November 2005, Wiacek v. Poland (dec.), no. 19795/02, 17 January 2006 and Tereba v. Poland (dec.), no. 30263/04, 21 November 2006).

• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).

• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  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 has some application to pre-trial proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  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, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  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).
• VGH der UEK, 10.02.2003 - 2/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  In its first relevant decisions, the Constitutional Court ruled out the possibility of filing a constitutional complaint against a decision adopted in ancillary proceedings (see, decision of 10 January 2001, case no. SK 2/00 concerning a challenge to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulating imposition and prolongation of detention on remand and the decision of 19 March 2001, case no. Ts 21/01, regarding admissibility of the constitutional complaint against the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulating the grounds for withdrawal of a judge).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  MIGON v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  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, 05.07.2005 - 20723/02

  OSVATH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  The Court finds that even if the applicant was represented at the hearings concerning her detention, this possibility was not sufficient to afford her a proper opportunity to comment on the prosecution's motions (see, Osváth v. Hungary, no. 20723/02, § 18, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  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 judgements (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, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.07.2007 - 15/04
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 28904/02

  GORSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.11.2006 - 30263/04

  TEREBA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 19795/02

  WIACEK v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 5258/08

  [ENG]

  To justify the amount proposed to the applicant the Government would like to point to the Court's case-law concerning the length of pre-trial detention (see, recent cases Goliszewki v. Poland, application no. 14148/05, judgment of 8 December 2009 or Wegera v. Poland, application no. 141/07, judgment of 19 January 2010) and case-law concerning Article 5 § 4 (see, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, application no. 28481/03, judgment of 15 January 2008, Chruscinski v. Poland, application no. 22755/04, judgment of 6 November 2007).

  It also refers to its case-law regarding complaints of a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of lack of equality of arms between parties in the proceedings concerning the extension of the detainee's pre-trial detention (see, for example, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, 15 January 2008, and Chruscinski v. Poland, no. 22755/04, 6 November 2007).

• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 29705/05

  Recht auf Freiheit der Person und Recht auf Akteneinsicht (Recht auf ein faires …

  Der Gerichtshof ruft in diesem Zusammenhang in Erinnerung, dass er bereits in mehreren Fällen einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention festgestellt hat, wenn dem Verteidiger im Haftprüfungsverfahren die Akteneinsicht versagt wurde (siehe S. ./. Deutschland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25116/94, ECHR 2001-I ; L. ./. Deutschland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24479/94, ECHR 2001-I; G. A. ./. Deutschland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23541/94, 13. Februar 2001; und Laszkiewicz ./. Polen , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28481/03, 15. Januar 2008).

• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 45392/11

  PUSHCHELENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As regards in particular the case of Mr Lysenko, the Court accepts that the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of his alleged criminal activities constituted a relevant ground for extending his detention for the time necessary to complete the investigation and hear evidence from the accused and witnesses in court (see, for similar reasoning, Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006, and Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59-60, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06

  [ENG]

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06

  [ENG]

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime and involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06

  [ENG]

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime and involving numerous defendants the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 13541/06

  [ENG]

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).