Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KAMPANIS c. GRÈCE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 5-4 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KAMPANIS v. GREECE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 05.05.1993 - 17977/91
- EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
Papierfundstellen
- Serie A Nr. 318-B
Wird zitiert von ... (107) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 19.04.1993 - 13942/88
KRASKA c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
The Court is vested with full jurisdiction within the limits of the case as referred to it and is competent, inter alia, to take cognisance of any question of fact which may arise in the course of consideration of the case; it remains free to make its own assessment of the findings in the Commission's report and, where appropriate, to depart from them, in the light of all the material which is before it or which, if necessary, it obtains (see, among other authorities, the Kraska v. Switzerland judgment of 19 April 1993, Series A no. 254-B, p. 47, para. 22). - EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
According to the Court's case-law, the possibility for a prisoner "to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation" features in certain instances among the "fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" (see the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, para. 51).
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
However, it has consistently held that the "procedural" guarantees under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention are broadly similar to those under Article 6 § 1 (see, for instance, Winterwerp, cited above, § 60; Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 51 and 55, Series A no. 107; Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B; and Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, § 103, 26 July 2001). - EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03
IDALOV c. RUSSIE
La possibilité pour un détenu d'être entendu lui-même ou moyennant une certaine forme de représentation figure parmi les garanties procédurales fondamentales appliquées en matière de privation de liberté (Kampanis c. Grèce, 13 juillet 1995, § 47, série A no 318-B). - EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the above-mentioned Schiesser judgment, p. 13, §§ 30-31, the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
- EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01
BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA
The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, § 47). - EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01
SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
(g) Next, in the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, Article 5 § 4 requires that a hearing be held (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 126, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
WLOCH v. POLAND
In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, § 47). - EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31195/96
NIKOLOVA c. BULGARIE
The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, the prosecutor and the detained person (see the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51; the Toth v. Austria judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224, p. 23, § 84; and the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47). - EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 18837/06
ALLEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
The possibility for a detainee to be heard either in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, § 47).The case-law makes clear that, in order to comply with that paragraph, proceedings to extend a person's detention on remand or to review a decision ordering the person's detention or refusing bail must be adversarial in nature and must ensure equality of arms between the parties: in this regard, the Court has held that the possibility for a detainee to be heard in person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see, for example, Kampanis v. Greece, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, § 47).
- EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94
Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …
Der Gerichtshof ist der Auffassung, dass ein Beschuldigter, der eine Versagung der Einsichtnahme in Ermittlungsakten rügt, zwar grundsätzlich in angemessener Weise gemäß dem innerstaatlichen Recht um Einsichtnahme ersucht haben muss (siehe sinngemäß das Urteil vom 13. Juli 1995 in dem Fall Kampanis ./. Griechenland, Serie A Nr. 318-B, S. 46 Ziff. 51), das Fehlen eines entsprechenden Vermerks in den Verfahrensakten allein jedoch keinen hinreichenden Beweis dafür darstellt, dass kein entsprechender Antrag gestellt worden ist. - EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05
CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04
LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 8014/07
FRUNI v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 31610/08
ALTINOK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04
CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01
REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 80452/12
CHRISTODOULOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06
FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 67696/11
ADEM SERKAN GÜNDOGDU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 34382/07
TRIPADUS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06
RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05
MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 33977/96
ILIJKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 61767/08
PYATKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 1600/09
KOROLEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33619/04
SOKURENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02
ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06
ANANYIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03
KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06
SOROKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 16794/05
NOVRUZ ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04
GUBIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 11956/07
STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 1)
- EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 29049/12
STERGIOPOULOS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 10473/05
CATANA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 26402/17
MANZANO DIAZ c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 29896/13
LAVRENTIADIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 49658/09
DIMITRIOS DIMOPOULOS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 33065/03
SAMOILA ET CIONCA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 12686/03
Gorou ./. Griechenland
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05
MODARCA v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 10816/02
KOZIMOR v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 29687/96
WESOLOWSKI c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 09.01.2001 - 25874/94
KAWKA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95
NIEDBALA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 23.01.2020 - 35121/09
YURIY KOVAL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.03.2015 - 18230/09
TSITSIRIGGOS c. GRÈCE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 36997/08
CERNÁK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02
SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 36500/05
SALONTAJI-DROBNJAK v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 42778/05
GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 1)
- EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02
VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05
ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 67016/01
DUDA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 62324/00
DEPA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 27695/03
SERIFIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 9029/05
KAMPANELLIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 21845/03
GOROU c. GRECE (N° 3)
- EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 73717/01
ALIJA c. GRECE
- EGMR, 23.09.2004 - 71498/01
KOTSARIDIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 38668/97
CISZEWSKI c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 34091/96
M.B. v. POLAND
- EGMR, 03.07.2003 - 56552/00
TELECKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.08.2002 - 61828/00
SAKKOPOULOS contre la GRECE
- EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 32819/96
CABALLERO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 27703/16
VENET c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 05.09.2019 - 20983/12
RIZZOTTO c. ITALIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 45594/11
SZEKELY v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 4345/06
BURMAGA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 8681/06
BULIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 40288/06
NAIMDZHON YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 33529/11
GÁBOR NAGY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65911/09
SHYTI c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 33882/05
SANDRU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 23639/10
FIKRI YAKAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 23623/10
TASÇI ET DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13859/03
HERMEZIU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 40876/07
BALA c. GRECE
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 38031/04
SHULENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 20259/06
AYTIMUR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 28551/06
ERHAN DINÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 7540/07
SEVIM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 32814/07
GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 3)
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 1291/03
SERGEY VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 3584/02
TARAU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 36205/06
GIOSAKIS c. GRECE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 74792/01
RASHID c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 29723/03
LAPUSAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 38713/06
BEREZA v. POLAND
- EGMR, 08.09.2005 - 27695/03
SERIFIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 71498/01
KOTSARIDIS contre la GRECE
- EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94
MIGON v. POLAND
- EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 25792/94
TRZASKA v. POLAND
- EGMR - 32654/18 (anhängig)
PĘDRAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 72827/12
KHOMCHENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04
ZAKSHEVSKIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03
G.O. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 20827/08
YIGITDOGAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03
YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 9029/05
KAMPANELLIS c. GRECE
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 14348/02
GARYCKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 41175/98
ROSAN contre la BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 7923/04
BUTUSOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 1966/07
SAYIK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 9747/04
GOROU c. GRECE (N° 4)