Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 46, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015 and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 147, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 46, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015 and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 147, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  The Court notes at the outset that the length of the applicant's detention on remand - more than three and a half years - is a matter of great concern requiring a very strong justification (see Tsarenko v. Russia, no. 5235/09, § 68, 3 March 2011).

• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 46108/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  The Court accepts that the risk of collusion flowing from the nature of the applicant's criminal activities actually existed, and justified holding him in custody on this ground for the relevant period (for similar reasoning, see Mkhitaryan v. Russia, no. 46108/11, §§ 94-98, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 25329/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  The Court notes that the rights guaranteed under paragraph 3 of Article 5 are distinct from those under paragraph 4 of that provision (see Rosselet-Christ v. Slovakia, no. 25329/05, § 51, 26 October 2010).
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 43808/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 46, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015 and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 147, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 47944/06

  TOMECKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  In the Court's view, the fact that the case concerned the alleged leader of such a criminal group should be taken into account in assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Tomecki v. Poland, no. 47944/06, § 30, 20 May 2008, and Luković, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 15612/13

  MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Luković v. Serbia, no. 43808/07, § 46, 26 March 2013; Mierzejewski v. Poland, no. 15612/13, § 42, 24 February 2015 and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 147, 13 April 2017).
• RG, 05.04.1902 - 65/02

  Zum Begriffe der "Anstalten" im Sinne des Art. 3 des Gesetzes, betr. einige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  The Constitutional Court has expressly stated that this is particularly relevant as regards the ruling which parties seek to obtain, as it can only decide on matters which a party has requested be determined (see, for example, decisions III. ÚS 166/02 of 6 November 2002 or III. ÚS 65/02 of 9 October 2002).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 19699/18

  AKGÜN c. TURQUIE

  Dans des affaires de ce type, il peut s'avérer essentiel de surveiller et limiter sans relâche les contacts entre les accusés, d'une part, et entre ceux-ci et des tiers, d'autre part, pour éviter que les premiers ne s'enfuient, n'altèrent les preuves ou n'influencent voire ne menacent les témoins (Lisovskij c. Lituanie, 36249/14, § 67, 2 mai 2017, Bak c. Pologne, no 7870/04, § 56, 16 janvier 2007, Štvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, 61, 5 juin 2018, et Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, 66357/14, § 149, 13 avril 2017).
• EGMR, 04.07.2019 - 26744/16

  KORBAN v. UKRAINE

  While, having regard to the incriminating material against the applicant, the Court accepts that there was a reasonable suspicion of his having committed a criminal offence, it reiterates that under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the existence of reasonable suspicion cannot on its own justify pre-trial detention, and must be supported by additional grounds (see Buzadji, cited above, § 95, and Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 59, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 23.07.2026 - 24465/23

  KOLESNYK v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications

  However, the Court observes that in some cases it found no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of even longer periods of pre-trial detention (see, for example, Van der Tang, cited above, §§ 58-76, 3 years and 1 month, Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, §§ 33, 44-48, ECHR 2006-XII, 5 years and 6 months, Buta v. Poland, no. 18368/02, §§ 29-48, 28 November 2006, 2 years and 6 months, Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, § 74, 20 September 2012, 3 years and almost 8 months, Ereren v. Germany, no. 67522/09, §§ 53-66, 6 November 2014, 5 years and 8 months, Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, §§ 66-80, 11 April 2017, almost 3 years, Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, §§ 56-72, 5 June 2018, 3 years and 8 months).

• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 73329/16

  HASSELBAINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017), in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018), in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017), in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (see Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (see Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (see Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 25658/19

  BANEVI c. BULGARIE

  La présomption étant toujours en faveur de la libération, il appartenait aux autorités bulgares d'exposer des arguments particulièrement solides pour maintenir le requérant en détention pendant une si longue période (voir, mutatis mutandis, Tsarenko c. Russie, no 5235/09, § 68, 3 mars 2011 ; Qing c. Portugal, no 69861/11, § 60, 5 novembre 2015 ; et Štvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, § 57, 5 juin 2018).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69491/16

  ZOHLANDT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018 in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  For example, the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 3 in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than four years (see Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, § 77, 2 May 2017, in which it considered that the Lithuanian courts thoroughly evaluated all the relevant factors and based their decisions on the particular circumstances of the case), in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of more than three years and eight months (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 65, 5 June 2018, in which the Court observed that the judicial authorities referred to specific facts of the case and did not use a pre-existing template or formalistic and abstract language and noted that, with the passing of time, the court's reasoning evolved to reflect the state of the investigations) and in a case concerning a pre-trial detention period of one year, three months and twenty-three days (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 153, 13 April 2017, in which the Court observed that while the various jurisdictions referred to the previous decisions refusing bail, they gave details of the grounds for the decisions in view of the developing situation and whether the original grounds remained valid despite the passage of time), whereas the Court did find a violation of this provision in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted three months (Sinkova v. Ukraine, no. 39496/11, § 74, 27 February 2018, in which the Court observed that, in extending the applicant's detention and rejection her applications for release, the domestic courts mainly referred to the reasoning for her initial placement in detention, without any updated details); in a case concerning a period of pre-trial detention of forty-three days (Krivolapov v. Ukraine, no. 5406/07, §§ 105-108, 2 October 2018, for which the Court noted the absence from the relevant decision of any justification other than the fact that criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant); and in a case in which the pre-trial detention lasted slightly less than two months (Cîrstea v. Romania [Committee], no. 10626/11, §§ 54-59, 23 July 2019, in which the Court found that the domestic courts failed to adduce a proper substantiation for the alleged risks in case of a discontinuation of the applicant's pre-trial detention).
• EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA and 3 other applications

  Rn. 16 All in all, the Court has no difficulty in accepting that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicants and that the reasons given by the domestic courts for the applicants' continued detention were "relevant" and "sufficient" within the meaning of its case-law (see also Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, §§ 57-66, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 37814/10

  MUCAJ v. ALBANIA

  In the absence of any measures taken by the judicial bodies to address such delays, it cannot be said that the domestic criminal justice system had handled the applicant's case with "special diligence" (compare and contrast with Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, §§ 67-70, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 22.05.2025 - 50704/21

  VEEN v. SLOVAKIA and 2 other applications

  The Court has accepted that, in similar circumstances, even prolonged pre-trial detention may be justified (see Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 58, 5 June 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 13.03.2025 - 59217/21

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 12928/20

  ABULADZE v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 16282/20

  STAYKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  HAVIK v. ESTONIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 03.03.2026 - 49652/22

  GAMMER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2025 - 37327/21

  OLIYNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 38838/21

  ABAFFY v. SLOVAKIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 9659/18

  GIMBATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 35328/17

  VIS?...EVSKIS v. LATVIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 45087/19

  PODOLINSKI v. ESTONIA and 2 other applications