Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  While such a danger usually diminishes with the passing of time (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 7), in the present case it was only at a later stage that that reason was invoked by the domestic court.
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  It may also require that the detainee or his representative be given access to documents in the case file which form the basis of the prosecution case against him (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 127, ECHR 2000-XI; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151; Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, ECHR 2006-VII; and A. and Others, cited above, § 204).
• EGMR, 25.06.1992 - 13778/88

  THORGEIR THORGEIRSON v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  The Court has examined a number of cases under Article 6 § 1 in which the fear of partiality arose on account of the public prosecutor's absence from the court hearings (see, for example, Thorgeir Thorgeirson v. Iceland, §§ 46-54, 25 June 1992, Series A no. 239; Ozerov v. Russia, no. 64962/01, §§ 47-58, 18 May 2010; Krivoshapkin v. Russia, no. 42224/02, §§ 44-45, 27 January 2011; and more recently, Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  It may also require that the detainee or his representative be given access to documents in the case file which form the basis of the prosecution case against him (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 127, ECHR 2000-XI; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151; Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, ECHR 2006-VII; and A. and Others, cited above, § 204).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 5201/11

  SHER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  Although it is not always necessary that an Article 5 § 4 procedure be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the type of deprivation of liberty in question (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 203, ECHR 2009 with further references to the Court's case-law and Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5201/11, § 147, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 70148/01

  FODALE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  It may also require that the detainee or his representative be given access to documents in the case file which form the basis of the prosecution case against him (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 127, ECHR 2000-XI; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151; Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, ECHR 2006-VII; and A. and Others, cited above, § 204).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 9190/03

  BECCIEV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  Moreover, in remand cases, since the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused person has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, the detainee must be given an opportunity effectively to challenge the basis of the allegations against him (see Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, §§ 68-72, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 23.10.2007 - 39835/05

  TURCAN AND TURCAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  This may require the court to hear witnesses whose testimony appears prima facie to have a material bearing on the continuing lawfulness of the detention (ibid., §§ 72-76, and Turcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, §§ 67-70, 23 October 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  Quite apart from the necessity of having sufficient personal space, other aspects of material conditions of detention are relevant for the assessment of whether they comply with Article 3. Such elements include access to outdoor exercise, natural light or air, the availability of ventilation, the adequacy of heating arrangements, the possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance with basic sanitary and hygiene requirements (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 149 et seq, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 66357/14

  Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed on the facts of each case and according to its specific features (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV; Kudla, cited above, §§ 110 et seq.
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 10.11.1969 - 1602/62

  Stögmüller ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99

  LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07

  ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  Having a "reasonable suspicion" presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 144, 13 April 2017, and Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  In any event, it is clear that he had only been isolated from other inmates (compare Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 116, 13 April 2017, concerning a de facto isolation as opposed to a de jure one, and Penaranda Soto, cited above, §§ 76-77), and even in that context, the Government claimed that communication was still possible from behind their cell doors and the applicant did not dispute that.
• 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, Stvrtecký c. Slovaquie, no 55844/12, 61, 5 juin 2018, et Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, 66357/14, § 149, 13 avril 2017).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  In particular the Council of Europe Conventions on the matter have bound States to criminalise the laundering of the proceeds of crime and provide for other measures aimed at having a strong criminal policy to combat this growing national and international phenomenon the complexities of which are unprecedented (see Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 181, 13 April 2017).
• 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 Stvrtecký 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, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA

  In that connection, the Court has noted that for such "abuse" to be established on the part of the applicant it requires not only manifest inconsistency with the purpose of the right of application but also some hindrance to the proper functioning of the Court or to the smooth conduct of the proceedings before it (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 65, 15 September 2009, and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 86, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14

  GAFÀ v. MALTA

  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, Kudla 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 - 74141/10 (anhängig)

  IZMESTYEV c. RUSSIE

  Quant à la complexité de l'affaire pénale, elle note que cet élément peut être pertinent, notamment dans des affaires concernant la criminalité organisée (voir, par exemple, Mkhitaryan c. Russie, no 46108/11, §§ 98-99, 5 février 2013, et Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, no 66357/14, §§ 147-148, 13 avril 2017).
• 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 Stvrtecký 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, 24.11.2020 - 31623/17

  BARDALI c. SUISSE

  Ensuite, constatant que le requérant n'a pas soumis une liste détaillée et cohérente de ses doléances, n'ayant notamment pas mentionné les dates ou des circonstances plus précises des restrictions dont il se plaint (voir, entre autres, Podeschi c. Saint-Marin, no 66357/14, § 112, 13 avril 2017), et que le dossier ne fait pas apparaître une dégradation de son état physique ou un risque pour sa santé (voir, a contrario, Modarca c. Moldova, no 14437/05, §§ 11, 28 et 64, 10 mai 2007), la Cour relève dans le rapport du directeur de la prison (paragraphe 7 ci-dessus) et dans les observations du Gouvernement (paragraphes 39 et 41 ci-dessus) que l'intéressé a pu bénéficier d'une heure de promenade quotidienne à l'air libre et, entre le 17 novembre 2014 et le 19 août 2015, d'une heure de sport hebdomadaire dans une salle de gymnastique.
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 10982/15

  MAASSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 26668/09

  NOSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 50766/14

  LYUBOMUDROVA AND VORONINA v. RUSSIA