Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POROWSKI v. POLAND

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03
• EGMR, 18.04.2018 - 34458/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (50)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are described in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland (no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V), Ratajczyk v. Poland (no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII), and Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2005-V).

  In particular, the Court considered that the remedy was capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42, ECHR 2005-V).

• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The same considerations apply where a Constitutional Court repeals domestic legislation as being unconstitutional (see, Henryk Urban, cited above, § 65 - in the context of the Court's ruling under Article 41 in a case concerning a law on the status of assessors and the notion of an "independent tribunal" under Article 6; P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, no. 18984/02, § 49, 22 July 2010 - in the context of a law excluding a person in a homosexual relationship from insurance cover as a dependant of a civil servant and Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 8; and Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31 - in the context of a law regulating the maternal affiliation of a child born out of wedlock and Article 8).

• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  There thus exists a certain overlap between this term and the general requirement stated at the beginning of Article 5 § 1, namely the observance of "a procedure prescribed by law" (see Bordovskiy v. Russia, no. 49491/99, § 41, 8 February 2005, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: the risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial (see Stögmüller v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 15, Series A no. 9); the risk that the accused, if released, would take action to prejudice the administration of justice (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7) or commit further offences (see Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, § 9, Series A no. 10) or cause public disorder (see Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 51, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  Moreover, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the material time, that is to say it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, § 109, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 38224/03

  Sanoma Uitgevers BV ./. Niederlande

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  In sum, the "law" is the provision in force as the competent courts have interpreted it (see in particular, in the context of Article 7, Kafkaris, cited above, § 139; in the context of Article 8, Kruslin v. France, 24 April 1990, § 29, Series A no. 176-A and De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 93, Series A no. 12; in the context of Article 9, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 88, ECHR 2005-XI; in the context of Article 10, Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010; The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, § 47, Series A no. 30 and Casado Coca v. Spain, 24 February 1994, § 43, Series A no. 285 A; and in the context of Article 11, Vyerentsov v. Ukraine, no. 20372/11, § 63, 11 April 2013).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  Furthermore, Article 6 does not guarantee a right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence (see, mutatis mutandis, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 57-72, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFarlane v. Ireland
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06

  VLAD AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 20372/11

  VYERENTSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 55669/00

  NAKHMANOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 2178/64

  Matznetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 14.06.2005 - 92/03

  PISK-PISKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.12.2003 - 37641/97

  MATWIEJCZUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 51895/99

  KWIEK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 15667/03

  WOLF v. POLAND
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 23463/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 2815/05

  ANTONICELLI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 57477/00

  MALIK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 21890/03

  LEWAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 141/07

  WEGERA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 21.07.2009 - 50020/06

  KACPRZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  BISTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27748/95

  ZDEBSKI, ZDEBSKA AND ZDEBSKA v. POLAND
• KAG Mainz, 17.07.2014 - M 16/14

  Eingruppierung; Zustimmungsersetzung
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

  DROZDOWSKI v. POLAND
• EKMR, 12.03.1981 - 8626/79

  X. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
• AGH Nordrhein-Westfalen, 08.12.1997 - 29/97
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 61/03

  NEBUSOVA v. HUNGARY AND SLOVAKIA
• RG, 03.01.1903 - V 414/02

  Grundstückskauf. Vormerkung. Form.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen