Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOCHNAL v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Dochnal v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 39631/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  Other relevant domestic law and practice concerning family visits is outlined in the judgment Gradek v. Poland, no. 39631/06, §§ 20-24, 8 June 2010.

  The Court further observes that it has already held that Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of the exercise of any discretion conferred on the relevant authorities to restrict visiting rights (see Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, § 74-75, 19 January 2010, and Gradek v. Poland, no. 39631/06, § 43, 8 June 2010).

• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  The Court reiterates that a certain degree of access to the case file, if only to such an extent as to afford the detainee an opportunity of effectively challenging evidence on which his detention was based, may in certain circumstances be envisaged in proceedings concerning review of the lawfulness of detention during judicial proceedings (see Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16--17, § 29, and Chruscinski v. Poland, no. 22755/04, § 62, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04

  Russland wegen Chodorkowski verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  However, such cases remain rare (see, as an opposite example, Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 60654/00, § 129, ECHR 2007-II, and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 261, 31 May 2011).

• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  Therefore, in both sets of proceedings the applicant remained in continued and uninterrupted detention for a period of three years and four months (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 188, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 19.05.2004 - 70276/01

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (hinreichender Verdacht nach Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  Thus, in Gusinskiy v. Russia (no. 70276/01, § 73-78, ECHR 2004-... (extracts), the Court accepted that the applicant's liberty had been restricted, inter alia, for a purpose other than those mentioned in Article 5. The Court in that case based its findings on an agreement signed between the detainee and a federal minister of the press.
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V, and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated 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, 13.02.2007 - 15067/02

  CZAJKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  The Court therefore notes that the redress provided to the applicant at domestic level, considered on the basis of the matters of which he complains before the Court, was sufficient (compare and contrast Czajka v. Poland, no. 15067/02, § 56, 13 February 2007).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 141/07

  WEGERA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  The Court further observes that it has already held that Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of the exercise of any discretion conferred on the relevant authorities to restrict visiting rights (see Wegera v. Poland, no. 141/07, § 74-75, 19 January 2010, and Gradek v. Poland, no. 39631/06, § 43, 8 June 2010).
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 39912/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 31622/07

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v Poland (no. 2), no. 55777/08, § 40, 1 February 2011, and Ruprecht v. Poland, no. 39912/06, § 27, 21 February 2012).
• EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  MITEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 55777/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 31330/02

  GOLEK v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI ET 57 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  31622/07.
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 36228/06

  [ENG]

  The decision was left to the authorities" absolute discretion (see Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 95, 18 September 2012).
• 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, 27.05.2014 - 32327/10

  GOLAWSKI AND PISAREK v. POLAND

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, § 19, 2 February 2010; and Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 69, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 40988/09

  HOSZOWSKI v. POLAND

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the case and in particular because the amount of compensation proposed is substantially lower than the amount the Court would have awarded in similar cases, that the unilateral declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, § 19, 2 February 2010; and Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 69, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 52641/16

  K.P. v. POLAND

  Rn. 82 The Court has established in a number of cases, including cases brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of refusals to allow family visits to people in detention (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 222, 17 April 2012; Horych v. Poland, no. 13621/08, § 132, 17 April 2012; and Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 97, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 78761/12

  RAKIC v. SERBIA

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the case and in particular because the amount of compensation proposed is substantially lower than the amount the Court would have awarded in similar cases, that the unilateral declaration does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see mutatis mutandis, Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, § 19, 2 February 2010; and Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 69, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2311/10

  PURPIAN SP. Z O.O. v. POLAND

  Having studied the terms of the Government's unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Magoch v. Poland, no. 29539/07, § 19, 2 February 2010; and Dochnal v. Poland, no. 31622/07, § 69, 18 September 2012).