Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 in that the applicant was not brought before a judge or other officer exercising judicial power Violation of Art. 5-3 in respect of the lack of justification for the detention pending trial Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-1 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  Having regard to the criteria established in its case-law for the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, ECHR 1999-II and Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark, no. 49017/99, 19 June 2003), the Court finds that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant failed to satisfy the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  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 Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-53, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  In previous judgments which concerned the system of detention pending trial as it existed in Bulgaria until 1 January 2000, the Court found that neither investigators before whom accused persons were brought, nor prosecutors who approved detention orders could be considered to be "officer[s] authorised by law to exercise judicial power" within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Assenov and Others, cited above, pp. 2298-99, §§ 144-50; Nikolova, cited above, §§ 49-53; and Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 52-54, ECHR 2003-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  In this connection the Court recalls that "[w]here the needs of the investigation are invoked in... a general and abstract fashion they do not suffice to justify the continuation of detention (see Clooth v. Belgium, judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225, p. 16, § 44).

• EGMR, 01.12.2011 - 8080/08

  Verletzung des Rechts auf Freiheit und Sicherheit sowie der Versammlungsfreiheit …

  Nach der ständigen Rechtsprechung der Konventionsorgane ist eine Entschädigungsklage in einem Fall, in dem es um die Rechtmäßigkeit einer Freiheitsentziehung geht, kein Rechtsbehelf, der erschöpft werden müsste, denn das Recht auf gerichtliche Prüfung der Rechtmäßigkeit einer Freiheitsentziehung und das Recht auf Erhalt einer Entschädigung für eine mit Artikel 5 nicht vereinbare Freiheitsentziehung sind zwei getrennte Rechte (…siehe u. a. Wloch v. Poland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 27785/95, Rdnr. 90, ECHR 2000-XI; Belchev ./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39270/98, 6. Februar 2003; und Khadisov und Tsechoyev ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21519/02, Rdnr. 151, 5.
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 37048/04

  GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Article 5 § 3 cannot be seen as authorising pre-trial detention unconditionally even if it is relatively short (see, among other authorities, Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004; Patsuria, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see, for example, Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012; and Bektashi Community and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 50636/09

  MARIJA BOZIC v. CROATIA

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  POPOVSKI v.

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 64659/11

  MAKRADULI v.

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no.36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  ANDREY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  A justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities and the requirement to give "relevant and sufficient" reasons applies from the moment when a judge examines for the first time the necessity of placing the suspect in pre-trial detention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 92-102, ECHR 2016 (extracts); Zherebin, cited above, § 61; and compare with Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004, in which the applicant's pre-trial detention lasted four months and fourteen days).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02

  CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE

  S'appuyant sur la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière (voir, entre autres, Belchev c. Bugarie, no 39270/98, § 82, 8 avril 2004, Trzaska c. Pologne, no 25792/94, § 65, 11 juillet 2000, et I.A. c. France, no 28213/95, § 104, CEDH 1998-VII) et renvoyant aux textes des décisions internes concernées, le requérant considère que les autorités n'ont pas rempli leur obligation de justifier de manière concrète la nécessité de son maintien en détention en vertu de l'article 148 h) du CPP, et, notamment, le danger pour l'ordre public qu'aurait constitué son maintien en liberté.
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  LJATIFI v.

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 48044/10

  BEKTASHI COMMUNITY AND OTHERS v.

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no.36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 15253/10

  SIMECKI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.09.2013 - 16880/08

  VELINOV v.
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 20448/02

  BEGU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 47156/16

  KLINKEL v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 22980/09

  OMEROVIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 2737/04

  AVDEYEV AND VERYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 13275/03

  MIHUTA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.09.2004 - 63905/00

  WASILEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 38510/06

  STETTNER v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 57028/00

  KLEIN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2011 - 38454/04

  TODOROV v. BULGARIA