Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,54415) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GALUASHVILI v. GEORGIA
Art. 2, Art. ... 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13 MRK
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76
Schiesser ./. Schweiz
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
Under the latter provision, the proceedings bearing on the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness", in Convention terms, of his deprivation of liberty must be adversarial and must always ensure "equality of arms" between the parties (see, among many others, Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, § 65; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31).However, this consideration must be qualified by the right of the detainee or his counsel to have a real opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the prosecutor's submission during the review - i.e. at an oral hearing (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, §§ 30-31).
- EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
However, it must be noted that it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those afforded by Article 6 of the Convention (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22). - EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
WLOCH v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
However, it must be noted that it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those afforded by Article 6 of the Convention (see, for instance, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI; Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22). - EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 24919/03
MATHEW CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
The applicant did not inform the Court what kind of treatment he had been provided with, or what was requested but withheld from him (see Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, §§ 185-195, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 32800/96
YAVUZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
In view of this requirement of speed, which is one of the core principles of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the domestic courts cannot be obliged to institute the exchange of all of the parties" documents, which would render it impossible to take a decision within the statutory time-limit of 24 hours (cf. Yavuz v. Austria (dec.), 32800/96, 18 January 2000).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,57317) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GALUASHVILI v. GEORGIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 40008/04
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Consequently, I find that the risks of absconding and hampering the establishment of the truth appear, in the present case, to be unsubstantiated, hypothetical and thus insufficient to justify depriving the applicant of his liberty (see Patsuria, cited above, §§ 69 and 71; Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43; and Smirnova v. Russia, no. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
DIKME c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
As the Court has often emphasised, the safeguard in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention secures "the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society" (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Contrary to the relevant Convention standards (see, for example, Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 46, 6 February 2007), the first-instance court endorsed the mere existence, unrelated to other valid grounds, of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence, and referred to the severity of the possible punishment (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 66, 7 April 2005, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 181, ECHR 2005-X).
- EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86
LETELLIER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Consequently, I find that the risks of absconding and hampering the establishment of the truth appear, in the present case, to be unsubstantiated, hypothetical and thus insufficient to justify depriving the applicant of his liberty (see Patsuria, cited above, §§ 69 and 71; Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 43; and Smirnova v. Russia, no. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 63, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 02.03.2006 - 11886/05
DOLGOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Such an omission by the domestic courts is yet another indication of their disregard for the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Patsuria, cited above, §§ 75-76, and Dolgova v. Russia, no. 11886/05, §§ 47, 48 and 50, 2 March 2006). - EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98
BELCHEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
As the Court forcefully pointed out in Belchev v. Bulgaria (no. 39270/98, § 82, 8 April 2004), there is no cause to consider that there is a "certain period" within which pre-trial detention may be regarded as acceptable. - EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 39324/98
DEMIREL c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
The Court has always held that the seriousness of the offence - and, consequently, the severity of the sentence - is a necessary ground for continuing a person's pre-trial detention but is in itself insufficient; other supporting reasons must also be given (see Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 8 January 2003, and Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003), but that did not happen in this case. - EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 54071/00
ROKHLINA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
Contrary to the relevant Convention standards (see, for example, Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, § 46, 6 February 2007), the first-instance court endorsed the mere existence, unrelated to other valid grounds, of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence, and referred to the severity of the possible punishment (see Rokhlina v. Russia, no. 54071/00, § 66, 7 April 2005, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 181, ECHR 2005-X). - EGMR, 30.10.2003 - 38654/97
GORAL v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
The Court has always held that the seriousness of the offence - and, consequently, the severity of the sentence - is a necessary ground for continuing a person's pre-trial detention but is in itself insufficient; other supporting reasons must also be given (see Demirel v. Turkey, no. 39324/98, § 59, 8 January 2003, and Goral v. Poland, no. 38654/97, § 68, 30 October 2003), but that did not happen in this case. - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 40008/04
The Court reiterates that the national authorities are better placed to evaluate the evidence adduced before them and, consequently, its task is limited to reviewing under the Convention the decisions they have taken rather than substituting its own assessment of the facts of the case (see, amongst other authorities, mutatis mutandis, X v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 20, § 43; Luberti v. Italy, judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 12, § 27). - EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80
- EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 17995/02
STOIMENOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.