Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. ... 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 70786/01
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 70786/01

  However, this state of affairs ended with the applicant's release on 19 December 1995, and he had no further remedy at his disposal which he could have pursued thereafter (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 239, 3 June 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P4-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSENGREN c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de P4-2 Préjudice moral - réparation Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 70786/01
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  Furthermore the Court notes that the domestic courts did not give relevant reasons for taking or prolonging the measure, although the applicant repeatedly challenged it (see, mutatis mutandis, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  The proceedings in the extraordinary appeal lodged subsequently by the Procurator-General and which aimed to have the final decision of 12 March 2002 quashed by the Supreme Court of Justice should not count towards the determination of the period relevant for the length complaint, as they do not concern "criminal charges" against the applicant, in so far as the appeal only concerned the expulsion order and not the merits of the charges against the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 20, § 43).

• EGMR, 25.11.2003 - 41431/98

  WIERCISZEWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  Moreover, this deficiency is imputable to the authorities and not the applicants (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 15007/02

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  This interference breaches Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 unless it is "in accordance with law", pursues one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 2 §§ 3 and 4 of Protocol No. 4 and is, in addition, necessary in a democratic society to achieve the aim or aims in question (see Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, § 36, 13 October 2005; and Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, § 86, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  In particular, in the Antonenkov and Others case (see Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005), where the length of such a restriction within the course of criminal proceedings was four years and ten months, the Court found no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. In the Fedorov and Fedorova case cited above (§§ 32-47), where the impugned obligation was imposed on the applicants for four years and three months, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case the restriction on the applicants' freedom of movement was not disproportionate.
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 19567/02

  MATICA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  Moreover, this deficiency is imputable to the authorities and not the applicants (see Wierciszewska v. Poland, no. 41431/98, § 46, 25 November 2003, and Matica v. Romania, no. 19567/02, § 24, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 71649/01

  PETRE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

  The Court reiterates that it is not in itself questionable that the State may apply various preventive measures restricting the liberty of an accused in order to ensure the efficient conduct of a criminal prosecution, in so far as such a measure, and in particular its duration, is proportionate to the aims sought (see, mutatis mutandis, Nagy v. Hungary (dec.), no. 6437/02, 6 July 2004; Fedorov and Fedorova, cited above, § 41; and Petre v. Romania, no. 71649/01, § 47, 27 June 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 20448/02

  BEGU c. ROUMANIE

  Elle observe ensuite que, d'après le dossier, les biens mis sous scellés par les enquêteurs lors de la perquisition domiciliaire n'ont pas fait l'objet d'une saisie par décision de justice pour que la voie de recours invoquée par le Gouvernement soit considérée un recours effectif dans le cas du requérant (a contrario Rosengren c. Roumanie (déc), no 70786/01, 4 mai 2006).
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 37971/02

  RUPA c. ROUMANIE (N° 2)

  Le délai de six mois a donc commencé à courir le 15 février 2001 en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de l'article 5 §§ 1 et 3 de la Convention et relatifs à la détention provisoire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Rosengren c. Roumanie, (déc.) no 70786/01, 27 avril 2004).
• EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 25333/03

  PETER c. ROUMANIE

  Le délai de six mois a donc commencé à courir le 6 novembre 2002 en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de l'article 5 §§ 3 et 4 de la Convention et relatifs à la détention provisoire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Rosengren c. Roumanie, (déc.) no 70786/01, 27 avril 2004), et la déclaration de culpabilité consécutive à l'établissement légal de l'infraction suffit pour justifier le maintien en détention de la requérante (Iribarne Pérez c. France, arrêt du 24 octobre 1995, série A no 325-C, §§ 30.

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROSENGREN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. ... 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 70786/01
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 70786/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  The Court recalls that the purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  The Court recalls that the purpose of Article 35 § 1, which sets out the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official regards the accused as guilty (see, among other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p. 18, § 37, Böhmer v. Germany, no. 37568/97, § 54, judgment of 3.10.02, Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56, and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36).

• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official regards the accused as guilty (see, among other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p. 18, § 37, Böhmer v. Germany, no. 37568/97, § 54, judgment of 3.10.02, Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56, and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  It suffices, even in the absence of any formal finding, that there is some reasoning suggesting that the court or the official regards the accused as guilty (see, among other authorities, Minelli v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62, p. 18, § 37, Böhmer v. Germany, no. 37568/97, § 54, judgment of 3.10.02, Deweer v. Belgium judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 30, § 56, and Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, p. 16, §§ 35-36).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  The Court's task is to ascertain whether the proceedings in their entirety were fair (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, pp. 34-35, § 34).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 42320/98

  BELINGER v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, among other authorities, Belinger v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 42320/98, 2 October 2001 and Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, pp.
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 40772/98

  PANCENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  It follows that in this respect the applicant may no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 34 (see, mutatis mutandis, Pancenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999, Gorizdra, cited above, and Micheyeva v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 50029/99, 12 September 2002).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  It is the Court's settled case-law that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI, and Gorizdra v. Moldova (dec.), no. 53180/99, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 53180/99

  GORIZDRA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 70786/01

  It is the Court's settled case-law that where the national authorities have found a violation and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress, the party concerned can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, ECHR 2004-VI, and Gorizdra v. Moldova (dec.), no. 53180/99, 2 July 2002).
• EGMR, 12.09.2002 - 50029/99

  MIKHEYEVA contre la LETTONIE
• EKMR, 09.10.1990 - 14545/89

  BYLOOS contre la BELGIQUE
• EKMR, 10.07.1991 - 12604/86

  G. contre la BELGIQUE
• EKMR, 03.04.1967 - 2676/65

  X. v. AUSTRIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen