Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRIFKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 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 - Review by a court) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Trifkovic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  The arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96

  ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  As regards the domestic courts" reliance on the gravity of the charges when extending the applicant's detention, the Court reiterates that it has repeatedly held that this reason cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see, among many other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006; and Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, § 186, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, § 54, Reports 1998-V; I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VII; Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, § 67, Series A no. 224; and B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, § 42, Series A no. 175).

• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  Against the above background the Court concludes, even taking into account the particular difficulty in dealing with a case concerning an organised criminal group, that the grounds given by the domestic authorities were not "sufficient" or "relevant" to justify the applicant's being kept in detention for three and a half years (see Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, § 40, 4 May 2006).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  As to the applicant's previous conviction for drug abuse as a reason for justifying the detention on the ground of the fear of reoffending, the Court considers that the domestic authorities were obliged to assess whether the previous facts and charges were comparable, either in nature or in the degree of seriousness, to the charges in the pending proceedings (see Popkov v. Russia, no. 32327/06, § 60, 15 May 2008, and Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 130, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 23782/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  Nor did they respond to the applicant's arguments that the previous conviction had concerned only possession of small quantities of drugs for personal use which was not comparable either in nature or in degree of seriousness with the charges of participation in organised supply of heroin (see, mutatis mutandis, Constantin and Stoian v. Romania, nos. 23782/06 and 46629/06, § 55, 29 September 2009).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01

  GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  As regards the domestic courts" reliance on the gravity of the charges when extending the applicant's detention, the Court reiterates that it has repeatedly held that this reason cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see, among many other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006; and Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, § 186, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  The national authorities must put forward very weighty reasons for keeping the applicant in detention for such a long time (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 68, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 32327/06

  POPKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  As to the applicant's previous conviction for drug abuse as a reason for justifying the detention on the ground of the fear of reoffending, the Court considers that the domestic authorities were obliged to assess whether the previous facts and charges were comparable, either in nature or in the degree of seriousness, to the charges in the pending proceedings (see Popkov v. Russia, no. 32327/06, § 60, 15 May 2008, and Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, § 130, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 36653/09

  By declaring the applicant's constitutional complaints inadmissible simply because a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted in the meantime, the Constitutional Court did not satisfy the requirement "that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy" (see Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 126, 8 April 2010; HaÄ‘i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 47, 1 July 2010; Bernobic v. Croatia, no. 57180/09, § 93, 21 June 2011; and Sebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 223, 28 June 2011).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 13425/02

  MICHTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2563/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 18/03

  VANZHULA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 1606/02

  POPOV AND VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 49905/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 51249/11

  ORAVEC v. CROATIA

  In this respect the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in that the Constitutional Court's failure to decide on the applicants' constitutional complaints on the merits made it impossible to ensure the proper and meaningful functioning of the system for reviewing their detention provided for under domestic legislation (see Peša v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 126, 8 April 2010; Hađi v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 47, 1 July 2010; Bernobić v. Croatia, no. 57180/09, § 93, 21 June 2011; Krnjak v. Croatia, no. 11228/10, § 54, 28 June 2011; Šebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 223, 28 June 2011; Getoš-Magdić v. Croatia, no. 56305/08, § 106, 2 December 2010; Trifković v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, §§ 139-140, 6 November 2012; and Margaretić v. Croatia, no. 16115/13, §§ 119-21, 5 June 2014).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA

  It follows that by failing to decide about the applicant's complaint promptly and declaring it inadmissible at the outset, the Constitutional Court brought about a situation in which the applicant was deprived of any meaningful remedy (for a similar issue under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, see, amongst many others, Trifkovic v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 139, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  REMETIN v. CROATIA

  Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account (see Trifkovic v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 146, 6 November 2012).

• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  At the outset the Court observes that the inordinate length of the applicant's detention on remand - more than four years - is a matter of grave concern and requires the domestic authorities to put forward very weighty reasons in order for it to be justified (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 68, 3 March 2011; Trifković v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 121, 6 November 2012; and Dragin, cited above, § 112).
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 47687/13

  BAMOUHAMMAD c. BELGIQUE

  De l'avis de la Cour, il y a lieu de considérer qu'en l'espèce, les circonstances volontairement créées par les autorités n'ont pas permis au requérant d'avoir une possibilité réaliste d'utiliser le recours en référé (voir, mutatis mutandis, sur le terrain de l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention, Trifković c. Croatie, no 36653/09, § 139, 6 novembre 2012, et références citées).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 38415/13

  KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

  In all those cases the Court considered it important to examine whether the applicant had sufficiently brought the impugned situation, seen as a whole, to the attention of the domestic authorities and had thus given them an adequate opportunity to assess whether his detention was compatible with the Convention (see Šuput, cited above, §§ 80-88; Dervishi v. Croatia, no. 67341/10, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2012; Trifković v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, §§ 108-11, 6 November 2012; and Dragin, cited above, §§ 103-05).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 75068/12

  DRAGIN v. CROATIA

  The Court notes at the outset that such inordinate length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, more than three years, is a matter of great concern which require a very strong justification (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 68, 3 March 2011, and Trifkovic v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 121, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 11228/10

  KRNJAK AGAINST CROATIA AND 8 OTHER CASES

  36653/09.
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 32806/09

  [ENG]

  The applicant did not claim any damages when invited to do so by the Court (see Trifkovic v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 146, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 16115/13

  MARGARETIC v. CROATIA

  In this respect the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that the Constitutional Court's failure to decide on the applicants" constitutional complaints on the merits made it impossible to ensure the proper and meaningful functioning of the system for the review of their detention provided for by the national law (see Pesa, cited above, § 126; HaÄ‘i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 47, 1 July 2010; Bernobic v. Croatia, no. 57180/09, § 93, 21 June 2011; Krnjak v. Croatia, no. 11228/10, § 54, 28 June 2011; Sebalj v. Croatia, no. 4429/09, § 223, 28 June 2011; Getos-Magdic v. Croatia, no. 56305/08, § 106, 2 December 2010; and Trifkovic v. Croatia, no. 36653/09, § 140, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 52943/10

  DAMJANAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 56998/16

  VELECKA v. LITHUANIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 13394/18

  MIKOCIUNAS v. LITHUANIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 08.02.2018 - 33566/11

  RAMKOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 46398/09

  DIMITAR MILADINOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" and 2 other …
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 12928/20

  ABULADZE v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 56111/12

  ORBAN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 49652/22

  GAMMER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 12025/16

  CUPAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 13679/15

  KARAS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 55102/13

  V.R. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 45087/19

  PODOLINSKI v. ESTONIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 45593/13

  JOVIC v. CROATIA