Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DONAT AND FASSNACHT-ALBERS v. GERMANY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 13, Art. 13+5 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• BVerfG, 24.10.2001 - 1 BvR 1190/90

  Sitzblockaden III

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  1 ss., and file no. 1 BvR 1190/90 and others, decision of 24 October 2001, BVerfGE vol.

  The Federal Constitutional Court found, in particular, that only a blockade in which the participants set up a physical barrier, going beyond the mere mental impact on the road users by their physical presence in the blocked street, may be classified as "force" for the purposes of Article 240 § 1 of the Criminal Code (file no. 1 BvR 1190/90 and others, ibid., § 31).

• BVerfG, 10.01.1995 - 1 BvR 718/89

  Sitzblockaden II

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  206 ss.; file no. 1 BvR 718/89 and others, decision of 10 January 1995, BVerfGE vol.
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02

  SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  The nature of the obligation arising from the relevant legislation including its underlying object and purpose, the person being detained and the particular circumstances leading to the detention as well as its duration are relevant factors in drawing such a balance (see Vasileva, cited above, §§ 37-38; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, § 46, ECHR 2010; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, § 236, 22 February 2011; and Ostendorf, cited above, § 73).

 
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 34010/06

  FATMA AKALTUN FIRAT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  Although the Court found that short-term deprivation of liberty may fall under Article 5 § 1 (see, inter alia, M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 185-195, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Fatma Akaltun Fırat v. Turkey, no. 34010/06, §§ 33-36, 10 September 2013), it has considered that "kettling" differed substantially from cases of detention in police facilities (see Austin and Others, cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not of nature or substance (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 92-93, Series A no. 39; and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not of nature or substance (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 22; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 92-93, Series A no. 39; and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  Although the Court found that short-term deprivation of liberty may fall under Article 5 § 1 (see, inter alia, M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 185-195, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Fatma Akaltun Fırat v. Turkey, no. 34010/06, §§ 33-36, 10 September 2013), it has considered that "kettling" differed substantially from cases of detention in police facilities (see Austin and Others, cited above, § 52).
• BVerfG - 1 BvR 1190/84 (anhängig)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 6315/09

  The conditions under which the blocking of streets for reasons of political protest is punishable under Article 240 of the Criminal Code has been a matter of intense academic discussion for many years and has been addressed and clarified by the Federal Constitutional Court in at least three leading decisions (file no. 1 BvR 1190/84 and others, judgment of 11 November 1986, Collection of the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfGE) vol.

• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 23158/20

  MAKARASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  6315/09 and 12134/09, § 67, 11 February 2014; see also G. v. Germany, no. 13079/87, Commission decision of 6 March 1989, Decisions and Reports 60, p. 263).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 77686/16

  ARNOLD ET MARTHALER c. SUISSE

  Dès lors, elle ne considère pas indispensable d'examiner la question de savoir si la mesure de confinement, subie par les intéressés (environ une heure pour le premier requérant et deux heures et demie pour le second), peut également être considérée comme une privation de liberté au sens de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention (voir, dans ce sens, l'affaire Donat et Fasnacht-Albers c. Allemagne (déc.) nos 6315/09 et 12134/09, § 52, 11 février 2014), cela d'autant plus que l'objet principal du grief des requérants se rapporte à la détention subie par eux ultérieurement à la mesure de confinement.