Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAZNIAK v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  Partly inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-3 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  As from that date he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and, consequently, that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104).

  The Court notes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-...; and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  On 1 March 2005 the Court gave decisions in two leading cases: Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (criminal proceedings) and Michalak v. Poland no. 24549/03 (civil proceedings), holding that persons complaining about the length of proceedings before the Polish courts were required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to lodge a complaint of breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act.
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 24549/03

  MICHALAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  On 1 March 2005 the Court gave decisions in two leading cases: Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (criminal proceedings) and Michalak v. Poland no. 24549/03 (civil proceedings), holding that persons complaining about the length of proceedings before the Polish courts were required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to lodge a complaint of breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act.

• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  However, the Court notes that it does not transpire from the case-file that either the applicant or his legal-aid lawyer requested to be brought before the court to attend these sessions and availed themselves of the opportunity to be present during the examination of the question of extension of detention, which amounts to a waiver of rights (see Kawka v. Poland, no. 25874/94, §§ 60 and 61, 9 January 2001 and, by contrast, Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, § 82, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  However, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for instance, Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, 15 November 2005, § 31-42; Trzaska v. Poland, no. 25792/94, 11 July 2000; and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, p. 3302, § 162 and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI, both with reference to Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22).
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  The Court notes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-...; and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 51-53, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 31330/02

  GOLEK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other "preventive measures" (srodki zapobiegawcze) are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Golek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
• EGMR, 13.07.1999 - 28997/95

  KAWKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 6767/03

  Also, States remain obliged to maintain a continuous review of the detention arrangements employed with a view to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, having due regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Bonnechaux v. Switzerland, Commission's report of 5 December 1979, DR 18, §§ 100 and 148; Lukanov v. Bulgaria, Commission decision of 12 January 1995, DR 80-A, §§ 128-130; Sadowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32726/96, 12 October 2000; and Kawka v. Poland (dec.), no. 28997/95, 13 July1999).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court accepts that, in the special circumstances of the case, the risk stemming from the nature of the applicant's relations with witnesses actually existed and justified holding him in custody for the relevant period (compare with Razniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, § 31, 7 October 2008, and also see Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, § 58, Reports 1998-V).
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  8824/09 and 42836/12, § 69, 9 July 2015; compare and contrast Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, § 44, ECHR 2006-XII, and Rażniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, §§ 10 and 33, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 46282/07

  [ENG]

  Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (compare Razniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, § 25, 7 October 2008).

• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 16579/03

  [ENG]

  The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that the grounds given for the applicant's pre-trial detention were "relevant" and "sufficient" to justify holding him in custody for the entire relevant period, that is one year, eleven months and twenty-two days (see Razniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 35328/17

  VIS?...EVSKIS v. LATVIA and 2 other applications

  In cases of this kind, continuous control and limitation of the defendants' contact with each other and with other persons may be essential to avoid their absconding, tampering with evidence and, most importantly, influencing or even threatening witnesses (compare Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 56, 16 January 2007; Rażniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, § 25, 7 October 2008; and, more recently, Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, § 58, 5 June 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 9916/13

  MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND

  The Government relied, in particular, on the case of Razniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, 7 October 2008, where the applicant's detention, which lasted two years and nine months, was found not to be in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 45373/05

  [ENG]

  The Court accepts that, in the special circumstances of the case, the risk stemming from the nature of the applicant's relations with witnesses actually existed and justified holding him in custody (compare with Razniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, § 31, 7 October 2008, and also see Contrada v. Italy, 24 August 1998, § 58, Reports 1998-V).
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 18480/06

  [ENG]

  La Cour rappelle que, si la procédure au titre de l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention ne doit pas toujours s'accompagner de garanties identiques à celles que l'article 6 prescrit pour les procès civils ou pénaux, il faut qu'elle revête un caractère judiciaire et offre des garanties adaptées à la nature de la privation de liberté en question (voir, par exemple, Reinprecht c. Autriche, no 67175/01, 15 novembre 2005, §§ 31-42 ; Razniak c. Pologne, no 6767/03, 7 octobre 2008, § 52).
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 40176/08

  [FRE]

  La Cour note d'abord que l'affaire porte sur le crime organisé et rappelle que, dans d'autres affaires similaires, il a été jugé que les affaires de ce type posent par leur nature davantage de difficultés aux autorités et peuvent raisonnablement justifier l'application plus longue de la détention provisoire (voir notamment Bak c. Pologne, no7870/04, 16 janvier 2007, § 56, Celejewski c. Pologne, no 17584/04, 4 mai 2006 ; Razniak c. Pologne, no 6767/03, 7 octobre 2008, §§ 25-26 ; Miernicki c. Pologne, no10847/02, 27 octobre 2009, § 62).
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 26144/05

  KOWALENKO v. POLAND

  In these circumstances, the Court accepts that the need to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources, coupled with the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of the applicant's alleged criminal activities and an individual risk flowing from the fact that the evidence obtained in the case indicated that the applicant might have instructed certain witnesses to give false testimony, constituted relevant and sufficient grounds for extending his detention during the time necessary to complete the investigation, to draw up the bill of indictment and to hear and to analyse evidence from the accused at trial (see Razniak v. Poland, no. 6767/03, 7 October 2008; Pinkowski v. Poland, no. 16579/03, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 6544/08

  BATOR c. POLOGNE