Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAWLAK v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  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, no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 11215/02

  RATAJCZYK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, judgment of 3 October 2006, and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, judgment of 10 October 2006.
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 3501/02

  RYBCZYNSCY v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, judgment of 3 October 2006, and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, judgment of 10 October 2006.

 
• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 69129/01

  BIALAS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  For the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings, see Ratajczyk v. Poland (dec.), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005; Rybczynscy v. Poland, no. 3501/02, judgment of 3 October 2006, and Bialas v. Poland, no. 69129/01, judgment of 10 October 2006.
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  Such detention cannot be considered on the same footing as a detention under Article 5 § 1 (c), with which Article 5 § 3 is solely concerned, as it applies only to persons in custody awaiting their trial (see Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, pp. 23-24, § 9 and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, judgment of 16 January 2007, § 54).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  In the Campbell v the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1992 Series A no. 233, par.
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  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 (see, among other authorities, W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 254-A, p. 5, § 30).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  However, the Court has recognised the impossibility of attaining absolute certainty in the framing of laws and the risk that the search for certainty may entail excessive rigidity (see, among other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, §§ 86-88, Kozimor v. Poland, no. 10816/02, § 48, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 39840/05

  The Court reiterates that, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see, for example, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39).