Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÁBOR NAGY v. HUNGARY (No. 2)

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GÁBOR NAGY v. HUNGARY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  The Court acknowledges the need for criminal investigations to be conducted efficiently, which may imply that part of the information collected during them is to be kept secret in order to prevent suspects from tampering with evidence and undermining the course of justice (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 47, ECHR 2001-I, see also in the context of Article 6, A.T. v. Luxembourg, no. 30460/13, § 79, 9 April 2015).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  Therefore, information which is essential for the assessment of the lawfulness of a detention should be made available in an appropriate manner to the suspect's lawyer (see Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, §§ 42, 13 February 2001).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  Where full disclosure is not possible, Article 5 § 4 requires that the difficulties this causes are counterbalanced in such a way that the individual still has a possibility effectively to challenge the allegations against him (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 203, 17 April 2012, with further reference to A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 205, ECHR 2009).

• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 21566/13

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  However, there is no appearance of any significant period of inactivity on the part of the prosecution or the courts (see, Sergey Denisov v. Russia, no. 21566/13, § 81, 8 October 2015, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  Moreover, it should not be incumbent on the detained person to demonstrate that there are reasons warranting his release (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 64, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  As regards the risk of absconding, the Court reiterates that it should be assessed with reference to various factors, especially those relating to the character of the person involved, his morals, his home, his occupation, his assets, his family ties and all kinds of links with the country in which he is being prosecuted (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8, and Yegorychev v. Russia, no. 8026/04, § 54, 17 May 2016).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  Having regard to the above, the Court cannot agree with the applicant's assertion that the domestic courts' decisions were limited to reiterating the reasons for detention provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, without explaining how they applied to the facts of his case (compare and contrast Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 34, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  It is true that, in the long term, the requirements of the investigation do not suffice to justify the detention of a suspect, as, in the normal course of events, the risks alleged diminish over time as inquiries are completed, statements are taken and verifications are carried out (see also Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, § 43, Series A no. 225).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  The Court does not consider this period short in absolute terms (see and compare with Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 61, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 55939/00

  SULAOJA v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 73999/14

  Although it cannot be concluded from a lack of employment or a family that a person is inclined to commit new offences (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64, 15 February 2005), the Court accepts that, in the special circumstances of the case, a risk of reoffending as demonstrated by the elements relied on by the domestic courts actually existed.
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 28020/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8026/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 15612/13

  MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2026 - 7869/25
  Even taking into account that the prosecution concerned the suspicion of involvement in a complex murder case and other offences, the Court considers it a substantial period of time (compare Maglódi v. Hungary, no. 30103/02, § 32, 9 November 2004; Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 66, 11 April 2017; and Lakatos v. Hungary, no. 21786/15, § 56, 26 June 2018; see also, for illustrative purposes, Somogyi v. Hungary [Committee], no. 43411/12, § 28, 17 October 2017).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 13252/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei wegen Inhaftierung zweier Journalisten - EGMR verurteilt …

  Where full disclosure is not possible, Article 5 § 4 requires that the difficulties this causes are counterbalanced in such a way that the individual still has a possibility effectively to challenge the allegations against him (see Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, no. 1346/12, § 73, 20 February 2014, and Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 86, 11 April 2017).
• 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, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  At least they were no less diligent and no more protracted than those which were examined by a Chamber of the very same Fourth Section of the Court in Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2) (no. 73999/14, 11 April 2017, not yet final).
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 8284/07

  [FRE]

  Where full disclosure is not possible, Article 5 § 4 requires that the difficulties this causes are counterbalanced in such a way that the individual still has a possibility effectively to challenge the allegations against him (see Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, no. 1346/12, § 73, 20 February 2014, and Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 86, 11 April 2017).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 21786/15

  LAKATOS v. HUNGARY

  Even taking into account that the case concerned the suspicion of murder, the Court does not consider this period short in absolute terms (compare and contrast Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 66, 11 April 2017, and Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 61, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 56998/16

  VELECKA v. LITHUANIA and 3 other applications

  (1) the risk of the applicants' absconding, based on the nature and the severity of the crime they were suspected of committing and their connections abroad for the first and the fourth applicants (see Lisovskij, cited above, § 76 and the references therein; Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 70, 11 April 2017; and Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, § 151, 13 April 2017).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 25190/18

  DOCEVSKA-BOZHINOVSKA v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  While it is true that, as argued by the Government, the public prosecutor's appeal in the present case was in fact served on the applicant, the Court notes that this was done only after the detention order had been made by the three-judge panel (compare also Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, § 87, 11 April 2017).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 44885/06

  RYAZANOV v. RUSSIA

  The hearings in his criminal case were held regularly and at short intervals, and the courts took proper measures to ensure the speedy progress of the proceedings (see Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, §§ 78-79, 11 April 2017).
• EGMR, 15.12.2020 - 13394/18

  MIKOCIUNAS v. LITHUANIA and 2 other applications

  The hearings were mainly scheduled on a monthly basis, or even more frequently, and such a level of frequency is not in itself considered to be contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Gábor Nagy v. Hungary (no. 2), no. 73999/14, §§ 48 and 79, 11 April 2017).