Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the length of pre-trial detention Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 with regard to correspondence Violation of Art. 8 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  The prosecutor's submissions were put on the record of the session (cf. Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, judgment of 19 October 2000, §§ 69-73).

  In that regard, it would in particular refer to its judgments in the cases of Niedbała v. Poland (cited above §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000) and Włoch v. Poland (no. 27785/95, §§ 125-132; 19 October 2000, ECHR-2000-XI, p. 35-36; §§ 125-131), in which it has repeated the criteria established in its case-law in respect of the "fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" and has emphasised that one of the essential features of such a procedure is equality of arms between the prosecutor and the detained person.

• EKMR, 03.05.1978 - 8065/77

  X. c. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  Such restrictions as limitations put on the number of family visits, supervision over those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence, subjection of a detainee to a special prison regime or special visit arrangements constitute an interference with his rights under Article 8 but are not, by themselves, in breach of that provision (ibid. §§ 62-63; see also X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8065/77, Commission decision of 3 May 1978, Decisions and Reports 14, p. 246).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110-111 with further references, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  The applicant, relying on a number of examples from the Court's case law (in particular, the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43), maintained that there could be no doubt that the prosecutor who had detained him on remand had not offered guarantees of independence from the executive and the parties, as required under Article 5 § 3.
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 34611/97

  DACEWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  The Court recalls that in a number of its previous judgments - for instance, those in the cases of Niedbała v. Poland (cited above, §§ 48-57) and of Dacewicz v. Poland (no. 34611/97, judgment of 2 July 2002, § 21 et seq.) - it has already dealt with the question whether under the Polish legislation in force at the material time a prosecutor could be regarded as a "judicial officer" endowed with attributes of "independence" and "impartiality" required under Article 5 § 3.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

  MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  Pour déterminer si une ingérence est « nécessaire, dans une société démocratique ", la Cour tient compte de la marge d'appréciation laissée aux autorités nationales, mais l'État défendeur reste tenu de démontrer l'existence d'un besoin social impérieux sous-jacent à l'ingérence (Kučera c. Slovaquie, no 48666/99, § 127, 17 juillet 2007 ; et Klamecki c. Pologne (no 2), no 31583/96, § 144, 3 avril 2003).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (ibid. §§ 62-63; and Klamecki (no. 2) v. Poland, no. 31583/96, 3 April 2003, § 144, with further references).

• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (ibid. §§ 62-63; and Klamecki (no. 2) v. Poland, no 31583/96, 3 April 2003, § 144, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Such restrictions as limitations put on the number of family visits constitute an interference with his rights under Article 8 and must be applied first of all "in accordance with the law" (see Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  [ENG]

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that there was a particular reason to prevent the applicant from having conjugal visits with his wife (see, by contrast, Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 130, 17 July 2007; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 92 et seq., 11 October 2005; and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 135, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  In assessing whether an interference was "necessary" the Court will take into account the margin of appreciation left to the State authorities, but it is the duty of the respondent State to demonstrate the existence of the pressing social need behind the interference (see, among other authorities, Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  Nevertheless, any restriction of that kind must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see, among other authorities, Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  [ENG]

  The Court also reiterates that a restriction under Article 8 of the Convention must be applied "in accordance with the law", must pursue one or more of the legitimate aims listed in paragraph 2 and, in addition, must be justified as being "necessary in a democratic society" (see Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003, and Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, 17 July 2007).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA

  According to the Court's case-law, the answer to the question whether a violation of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 5 gives an entitlement to compensation for non-pecuniary damage depends on the circumstances of each case (see, for example, Nikolova, cited above, § 76; Rakevich v. Russia, no. 58973/00, § 52, 28 October 2003, Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 164, 3 April 2003, or Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 60, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 24205/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10

  COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 39598/98

  HULEWICZ V. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 15707/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 37976/06

  HILGARTNER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 55470/00

  FERLA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 20204/02

  KWIATEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.06.2005 - 44722/98

  LATASIEWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 30865/96

  JASINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 18157/04

  KURCZEWSKI v. POLAND

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 31583/96

  The prosecutor's submissions were put on the record of the session (see also Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, judgment of 19 October 2000, §§ 69-73).

  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 Niedbała v. Poland (no. 27915/95, §§ 48-57, 4 July 2000) and Włoch v. Poland (no. 27785/95, §§ 125-132; 19 October 2000, to be published in ECHR-2000-X), considers that an examination of the merits of the complaint is required.

• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 31583/96

  The applicant, relying on the Court's case law (in particular, the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43), maintained that there could be no doubt that the prosecutor who had detained him on remand had not offered guarantees of independence from the executive and the parties, as required under Article 5 § 3.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 30.04.2002 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 12151/86

  Auszug aus EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 31583/96

  F.C.B. v. Italy judgment of 28 August 1991, Series A no. 208-B, p. 20,.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 15312/89

  G. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 20.10.1997 - 31583/96

  1995, Series A no. 325-B, p. 38, para.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen