Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=13425/02
Timestamp: 2019-06-26 11:48:46+00:00
Document Index: 280942902

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 64', 'in fine', '§ 83', "l'article 5", '§ 3', "l'article 5", '§ 4', '§ 71', '§ 33', '§ 4', '§ 83', '§ 49', '§ 83', "l'article 5", '§ 4', '§ 44', '§ 85', '§ 94', '§ 99', '§ 37', '§ 26', '§ 26', "l'article 5", '§ 35', '§ 41', '§ 37', '§ 25', '§ 21', '§ 15', '§ 31', '§ 20', '§ 42', '§ 33', '§ 21', '§ 99', '§ 26', '§ 58', '§ 3', '§ 61', '§ 44', '§ 99', '§ 26', '§ 58', '§ 61', '§ 44', '§ 99', '§ 26', '§ 58', '§ 49', '§ 33', '§ 23', '§ 99', '§ 26', '§ 58', '§ 33', '§ 21', '§ 61', '§ 44', '§ 33', '§ 21', '§ 3', '§ 61', '§ 44', '§ 80', '§ 49', '§ 186']

Rechtsprechung: 13425/02 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 04.05.2006 | EGMR, 28.06.2005 | EGMR, 23.03.2004
EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94, 20758/03, 37444/97, 3158/06, 40153/09, 38713/06, 18120/03, 46117/07, 22807/07, 20005/04, 23042/02, 3489/03, 17584/04, 49929/99, 33868/05, 55777/08, 30049/06, 15067/02, 75112/01, 36250/06, 34221/96, 62324/00, 6334/02, 75107/01, 5270/04, 35367/05
https://dejure.org/2014,55811
EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 25792/94, 20758/03, 37444/97, 3158/06, 40153/09, 38713/06, 18120/03, 46117/07, 22807/07, 20005/04, 23042/02, 3489/03, 17584/04, 49929/99, 33868/05, 55777/08, 30049/06, 15067/02, 75112/01, 36250/06, 34221/96, 62324/00, 6334/02, 75107/01, 5270/04, 35367/05 (https://dejure.org/2014,55811)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.12.2014 - 25792/94, 20758/03, 37444/97, 3158/06, 40153/09, 38713/06, 18120/03, 46117/07, 22807/07, 20005/04, 23042/02, 3489/03, 17584/04, 49929/99, 33868/05, 55777/08, 30049/06, 15067/02, 75112/01, 36250/06, 34221/96, 62324/00, 6334/02, 75107/01, 5270/04, 35367/05 (https://dejure.org/2014,55811)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Dezember 2014 - 25792/94, 20758/03, 37444/97, 3158/06, 40153/09, 38713/06, 18120/03, 46117/07, 22807/07, 20005/04, 23042/02, 3489/03, 17584/04, 49929/99, 33868/05, 55777/08, 30049/06, 15067/02, 75112/01, 36250/06, 34221/96, 62324/00, 6334/02, 75107/01, 5270/04, 35367/05 (https://dejure.org/2014,55811)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,55811) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
TRZASKA AND 172 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
TRZASKA ET 172 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
EKMR, 06.09.1995 - 25792/94
Indeed, the provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial" but also lays down that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, § 64 in fine, 15 February 2005; Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
L'obligation que l'article 5 § 3 fait peser sur les Etats contractants se borne donc à la nécessité de conduire rapidement la personne détenue devant un magistrat compétent à ce stade initial, bien que l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention puisse dans certains cas exiger que l'intéressé soit ensuite présenté à un juge pour pouvoir contester de manière effective la régularité de sa détention lorsque celle-ci a une durée excessive (voir, mutatis mutandis, Trzaska c. Pologne, requête no 25792/94, rapport de la Commission du 19 mai 1998, §§ 71-81, non publié).
For instance, in Grauzinis v. Lithuania (no. 37975/97, § 33, 10 October 2000) the Court decided that the extension of the applicant's detention on remand by a district court at the request of the prosecution also attracted the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see also Telecki v Poland (dec.) no. 56552/00, 3 July 2003).
Indeed, that Article lays down not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial" but also provides that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 18353/03
KULIKOWSKI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE
General measures are examined in the context of the Trzaska group of cases (application No. 25792/94).
EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33374/05
KONRAD v. POLAND
However, the Court has repeatedly held that the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention on remand (see Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006).
Indeed, that provision proclaims not only the right to "trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial" but also provides that "release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial" (see Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 75832/13
La Cour a par exemple considéré que des délais de 17 ou 23 jours pour un degré de juridiction et des délais de 43 ou 54 jours pour deux degrés de juridiction n'étaient pas compatibles avec l'article 5 § 4 (voir, respectivement, Kadem c. Malte, no 55263/00, § 44, 9 janvier 2003, Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, §§ 85-88, CEDH 2000-XII, Jablonski c. Pologne, no 33492/96, § 94, 21 décembre 2000 et Khoudiakova, précité, §§ 99-100).
À cet égard, la Cour rappelle que, dans plusieurs affaires dans lesquelles le requérant était décédé en cours de procédure, elle a pris en compte la volonté de poursuivre celle-ci qu'ont exprimée les héritiers ou parents proches (voir, par exemple, les arrêts Deweer c. Belgique, 27 février 1980, §§ 37-38, série A no 35, X v. France, 31 mars 1992, § 26, série A no 234-C, Ahmet SadÄ±k c. Grèce, 15 novembre 1996, § 26, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-V, et Malhous c. République tchèque (déc.) [GC], no 33071/96, CEDH 2000-XII ; s'agissant plus précisément des griefs tirés de l'article 5 de la Convention et du grief tiré de la durée de la procédure pénale, voir, entre autres, Loukanov c. Bulgarie, 20 mars 1997, § 35, Recueil 1997-II, Nikolaj Krempovskij c. Lituanie (déc.), no 37193/97, 20 avril 1999, Jecius c. Lituanie, no 34578/97, § 41, CEDH 2000-IX, Bursuc c. Roumanie (déc.), no 42066/98, 4 novembre 2003, et les références qui y figurent, Schwarkmann c. France, no 52621/99, § 37, 8 février 2005, Kozimor c. Pologne, no 10816/02, §§ 25-29, 12 avril 2007, Terziev c. Bulgarie, no 62594/00, § 21, 12 avril 2007, Vasil Angelov c. Bulgarie, no 61662/00, § 15, 12 avril 2007, Pisarkiewicz c. Pologne, no 18967/02, § 31, 22 janvier 2008, Todev c. Bulgarie, no 31036/02, § 20, 22 mai 2008, et Gouloub Atanassov c. Bulgarie, no 73281/01, § 42, 6 novembre 2008).
EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08
CHYLA v. POLAND
EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 76024/01
RAPACCIUOLO c. ITALIE
EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04
EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 30028/06
PIOTR OSUCH v. POLAND
EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 43961/09
SMALTINI c. ITALIE
EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 45553/06
VOGT c. SUISSE
EGMR, 11.09.2013 - 14348/02
AFFAIRES GARYCKI ET FINSTER CONTRE LA POLOGNE
EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 19206/03
BRUCZYNSKI CONTRE LA POLOGNE
EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 10949/10
ZAMBRZYCKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 24676/07
DRUZKOWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 39842/05
DYLLER v. POLAND
EGMR, 11.12.2007 - 16308/02
EGMR, 29.05.2013 - 5422/04
AFFAIRES WOJCIECHOWSKI ET KAZIMIERCZAK CONTRE LA POLOGNE
EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39549/02
BENIASHVILI v. RUSSIA AND GEORGIA
EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 50178/08
LORBIECKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 23755/03
EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 7478/03
HAGEN v. POLAND
EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 48247/06
DUBLAS v. POLAND
EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 33868/05
CHOUMAKOV v. POLAND
EGMR, 29.07.2008 - 8260/04
OCHLIK v. POLAND
EGMR, 22.07.2008 - 35367/05
DROZDOVS v. POLAND
EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 33985/05
MIROSLAW JABLONSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 25413/04
HOLOWCZAK v. POLAND
EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 28633/02
POPLAWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 28.03.2002 - 25415/94
KLAMECKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 1629/11
EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 9916/13
MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 39412/08
SCIEBURA v. POLAND
EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 8661/06
JAN PAWLAK v. POLAND
EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 11825/07
LEMEJDA v. POLAND
EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 30049/06
CYNARSKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 22930/05
KACHEL v. POLAND
EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44131/05
EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 14224/05
GRACKI v. POLAND
EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 14613/02
ROCHALA v. POLAND
EGMR - 8284/07
EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 6362/07
WILCZEWSKI c. POLOGNE
EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 25212/06
PACAN c. POLOGNE
https://dejure.org/2006,37477
EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,37477)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.05.2006 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,37477)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Mai 2006 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,37477)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,37477) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Die Stärkung prozessualer Garantien im Recht der Untersuchungshaft in Deutschland und Polen (Dr. Christine Morgenstern; ZIS 2011, 240)
EGMR, 23.03.2004 - 13425/02
EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 13425/02
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners' correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.
The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003; Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006).
Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the detainee's counsel, with the State authorities and with the Council of Europe Information Office, contained in Articles 8 § 3, 102 (11) and 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to persons detained on remand (see Michta v. Poland no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003 and Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005, Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006).
Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, was also applicable to detained persons (see Michta v. Poland no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
The legal provisions concerning monitoring of detainees" correspondence applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs 65-66 of the judgment delivered by the Court on 4 May 2006 in Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02.
The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees" letters with the "censored" stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003; Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005, Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006).
EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 15476/02
BYSTROWSKI v. POLAND
However, the Court would reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of detention on remand (see Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 49, 4 May 2006).
For a more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions, see the Court's judgments in Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 33, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 23, 30 May 2006.
The Court has held on many occasions that as long as the Polish authorities continue the practice of marking detainees' letters with the ocenzurowano stamp, the Court has no alternative but to presume that those letters have been opened and their contents read, even if there is no separate stamp on the letter as such (see Matwiejczuk v. Poland, no. 37641/97, § 99, 2 December 2003 and Pisk-Piskowski v. Poland, no. 92/03, § 26, 14 June 2005, Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 58, 4 May 2006).
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 31116/03
FELINSKI v. POLAND
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.
Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights contained in Article 103 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, is also applicable to persons in pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland no. 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; and Kwiek v. Poland, no. 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of prisoners" correspondence is set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Michta v. Poland, no 13425/02, §§ 33-39, 4 May 2006 and Kwiek v. Poland, no 51895/99, § 21-24, 30 May 2006.
Accordingly, the prohibition of censorship of correspondence with the detainee's counsel, contained in Article 8 § 3 of the same Code, which expressly relates to convicted persons, is also applicable to persons in pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland no 13425/02, § 61, 4 May 2006; and Kwiek v. Poland, no 51895/99, § 44, 30 May 2006).
As regards the domestic courts" reliance on the gravity of the charges when extending the applicant's detention, the Court reiterates that it has repeatedly held that this reason cannot by itself serve to justify long periods of detention (see, among many other authorities, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001; Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006; and Gultyayeva v. Russia, no. 67413/01, § 186, 1 April 2010).
EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 14348/02
The Government maintained that a cassation appeal may be lodged by a party alleging a flagrant breach of any substantive or procedural provision of criminal law capable of affecting the substance of the judgment (cf. Kucharski v. Poland (dec.), no. 51521/99, 16 October 2003 and Michta v. Poland (dec.), no. 13425/02, 23 March 2004).
EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 26144/05
KOWALENKO v. POLAND
https://dejure.org/2005,39270
EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,39270)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2005 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,39270)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2005 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2005,39270)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,39270) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 34 MRK
https://dejure.org/2004,37447
EGMR, 23.03.2004 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,37447)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.03.2004 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,37447)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. März 2004 - 13425/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,37447)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,37447) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 8, Art. 34 MRK