Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAFÀ v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Conditional release;Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GAFA v. MALTA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (32)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 12050/04

  Mangouras ./. Spanien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  It also made reference to the Court's judgment in Mangouras v. Spain ([GC], no. 12050/04, § 79, ECHR 2010) as well as the Constitutional Court's judgment Salvatore Gauci v. Attorney General, of 31 July 1998, where it had been held that in establishing the amount to be deposited as security, the court must also consider other circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence and the danger to society.

  According to the Court's case-law, the guarantee provided for by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is designed to ensure the presence of the accused at the hearing (see Mangouras v. Spain [GC], no. 12050/04, § 78, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  Therefore, the amount of bail must be set by reference to the detainee, his assets and his relationship with the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in case of his non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his part to abscond (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  More importantly, to accept that the outcome of a trial could have an impact on any complaints concerning pre-trial detention would mean that any such complaint would be premature in the absence of a final judgment in the criminal proceedings, which is evidently not the case under the Court's current case-law (see, by implication, amongst many others, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. The United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X; and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, 13 April 2017).

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  In the instant case it cannot be argued that the period of detention was somehow of merely a few days' duration, as seems to have been the Grand Chamber's implicit argument in Aquilina v. Malta [GC] (no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III), where the detention lasted for just under nine days and where the core issue was the lack of automatic power on the part of the judicial authority to order release in the light of the domestic law as it then stood (§§ 49-50 and 53 of that judgment).
• EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 46852/13

  BURMYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  46852/13 et al, § 202, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02

  Léger ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  It has also struck applications out of its list on the basis of this provision on the ground that the applicant in question had died in the course of the proceedings and that no heir or close member of their family had expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings (see, for example, Gładkowski v. Poland (striking out), no. 29697/96, 14 March 2000; and Sevgi Erdoğan v. Turkey (striking out), no. 28492/95, 29 April 2003) or that the heir who expressed such an intention had no legitimate interest in that regard (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009; and S.G. v. France (striking out), no. 40669/98, 18 September 2001), or, in the light of a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant (see, for example, Hun v. Turkey (striking out), no. 5142/04, 10 November 2005; and Mürrüvet Küçük v. Turkey (striking out), no. 21784/04, 10 November 2005) or his or her lawyer (see, for example, Falkovych v. Ukraine (striking out), no. 64200/00, 4 October 2005; and Fleury v. France (dec.), no. 2361/03, 6 July 2006), or on the ground that the applicant had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him pursuant to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 (a) of its Rules of Court (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006).
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  The Court has, for example, ruled that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to strike an application out of its list of cases under this provision on the basis of a unilateral declaration by the respondent Government even though the applicant wishes the examination of the merits of his case to be continued (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; Meriakri v. Moldova (striking out), no. 53487/99, 1 March 2005; and Van Houten v. the Netherlands (striking out), no. 25149/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  In particular, the Court has rejected applications as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if they were knowingly based on untrue facts or misleading information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; and the cases cited therein) or if they contained offensive language (see, for example, Řehák v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004) or if the principle of confidentiality of friendly-settlement proceedings had been breached (see, for example, Tsonev v. Bulgaria, (dec.) no. 44885/10, 8 December 2015; and Ausad Valimised Mtü v. Estonia (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27 September 2016).
• EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

  ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  It is clear from this provision that the Court enjoys a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied upon in striking out an application on this basis, it being understood, however, that such grounds must reside in the particular circumstances of each case (see Association SOS Attentats and de Boery v. France [GC], (dec.), no. 76642/01, §§ 36-37, ECHR 2006-XIV).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  More importantly, to accept that the outcome of a trial could have an impact on any complaints concerning pre-trial detention would mean that any such complaint would be premature in the absence of a final judgment in the criminal proceedings, which is evidently not the case under the Court's current case-law (see, by implication, amongst many others, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. The United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X; and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 44885/10

  TSONEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2016 - 40631/14

  AUSAD VALIMISED MTU v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 69364/01

  GRIMAYLO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 36293/02

  TEMESAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 1985/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

  PE?‡ARANDA SOTO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 58274/00

  LA ROSA ET ALBA c. ITALIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 5142/04

  HUN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 21784/04

  MÜRÜVVET KÜÇÜK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 64200/00

  FALKOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 52332/99

  CALI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 47738/99

  OYA ATAMAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.03.2015 - 76392/12

  KOLAKOVIC v. MALTA
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 2361/03

  FLEURY c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 236/12

  KÉZDISZENTKERESZTI BÍRÓ v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 18.09.2001 - 40669/98

  S.G. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 28492/95

  SEVGI ERDOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 29697/96

  GLADKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 43985/13

  ABDI AHMED AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 1860/07

  CHERIF ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41858/10

  K.F. v. CYPRUS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 27057/06

  [ENG]

  The problem of the Article 41 wording was previously discussed in a dissenting opinion in Nikolova v Bulgaria [GC] (no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II), as well as in Gafà v. Malta (no. 54335/14, ECHR 2018).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  J'ai exposé mon avis sur cette question dans une opinion en partie dissidente jointe à l'arrêt Gafà c. Malte, no 54335/14, 22 mai 2018 (voir aussi, quoique dans un contexte un peu différent, l'opinion en partie dissidente annexée à l'arrêt Gorlov et autres c. Russie, nos 27057/06 et 2 autres, 2 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 41028/20

  ALPERIN v. UKRAINE

  In particular, the amount of bail must be set principally by reference to the accused, his or her assets and his or her relationship with the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in the event of his or her non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his or her part to abscond (see Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, § 70, 22 May 2018).

• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 31775/16

  SARANOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage that may have been sustained by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, § 80, 22 May 2018).
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 5432/15

  UGULAVA v. GEORGIA

  Given the subject matter of the applicant's complaints, the impugned delay in submitting the information in question cannot be seen as an attempt on his part to conceal from the Court any essential information that would be relevant for its decision (compare Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, § 62, 22 May 2018).
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS CONTRE MALTE ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  54335/14.
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 568/19

  MY?šLIWIEC v. POLAND

  As regards the complaint raised under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the conditions imposed on a suspect to ensure his or her appearance at trial - such as the establishment of an appropriate amount of bail - may be, depending on the circumstances of the case, of the utmost importance for assessing the merits of such a complaint (see, for example, Kolakovic v. Malta, no. 76392/12, §§ 68-69, 19 March 2015, and Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, §§ 70-71, 22 May 2018).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 23312/15

  ISTOMINA v. UKRAINE

  Therefore, the amount of bail must be set principally by reference to the accused, his or her assets and his or her relationship with the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in the event of the defendant's non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his or her part to abscond (see Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, § 70, 22 May 2018).