Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUIZ RIVERA c. SUISSE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-4 - Garanties procédurales du contrôle Contrôle de la légalité de la détention) Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUIZ RIVERA v. SWITZERLAND [Extracts]

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review Review of lawfulness of detention) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUIZ RIVERA v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 8300/06

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  In the case of Herz v. Germany (no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003), for example, the Court found that a psychiatric assessment dating back a year and a half was not sufficient by itself to justify deprivation of liberty (see also, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I, and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  Consequently, the present case clearly differs from that of Dörr v. Germany ((dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013), which concerned an applicant who had been convicted by a court and given a sentence combined with Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention), and which was decided on the basis of complaints under Article 5 § 1. The Dörr precedent does not apply in the present case, whatever one may think of the institution of Sicherungsverwahrung or of case-law which may be in conflict with the Dörr decision (see Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  In that connection, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4 based on the judgment in Herz v. Germany (no. 44672/98, 12 June 2003) and - mutatis mutandis - on the judgment in Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal (no. 44872/98, 26 February 2002, see paragraph 60).

• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 44672/98

  Verletzung von Art. 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention durch fehlende Rechtmäßigkeitsprüfung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  In the case of Herz v. Germany (no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003), for example, the Court found that a psychiatric assessment dating back a year and a half was not sufficient by itself to justify deprivation of liberty (see also, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I, and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  Consequently, the present case clearly differs from that of Dörr v. Germany ((dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013), which concerned an applicant who had been convicted by a court and given a sentence combined with Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention), and which was decided on the basis of complaints under Article 5 § 1. The Dörr precedent does not apply in the present case, whatever one may think of the institution of Sicherungsverwahrung or of case-law which may be in conflict with the Dörr decision (see Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  In that connection, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4 based on the judgment in Herz v. Germany (no. 44672/98, 12 June 2003) and - mutatis mutandis - on the judgment in Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal (no. 44872/98, 26 February 2002, see paragraph 60).

• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 2894/08

  DÖRR v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  In a recent case, the Court accepted a decision to keep an individual in preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) even though the latest medical opinion on which the decision relied dated back six years (see Dörr v. Germany (dec.) no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013), since the disorders noted in that opinion had been confirmed by the psychologist of the institution in which the individual was placed.

  Consequently, the present case clearly differs from that of Dörr v. Germany ((dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013), which concerned an applicant who had been convicted by a court and given a sentence combined with Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention), and which was decided on the basis of complaints under Article 5 § 1. The Dörr precedent does not apply in the present case, whatever one may think of the institution of Sicherungsverwahrung or of case-law which may be in conflict with the Dörr decision (see Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  It is problematic that in this case the majority have defined, for the purposes of the Article 5 § 4 examination, a new standard which does not correspond to the current case-law, as stemming in particular from the case of Dörr v. Germany ((dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  Referring to the Court's judgments in the cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, §§ 39 and 55, Series A no. 33) and Kolanis v. the United Kingdom (no. 517/02, § 67, ECHR 2005-V), the applicant took the view that his continued confinement could only be compatible with the Convention if it was reliably shown, by means of objective medical expertise, that he was suffering from a true mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting such confinement.

  According to the Court's settled case-law, Article 5 § 4 guarantees the right to independent judicial scrutiny, at reasonable intervals, of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 52, Series A no. 93, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 55, Series A no. 33).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  According to the Court's settled case-law, Article 5 § 4 guarantees the right to independent judicial scrutiny, at reasonable intervals, of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 52, Series A no. 93, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 55, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 44290/07

  SABEVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  As regards the qualifications of the medical expert in question, the Court considers in general that the national authorities are better placed than itself to evaluate them (see, mutatis mutandis, Sabeva v. Bulgaria, no. 44290/07, § 58, 10 June 2010; Witek v. Poland, no. 13453/07, § 46, 21 December 2010; and Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, § 47, 17 January 2012), but it has previously observed, in certain specific cases, and in particular where the person confined had no history of mental disorders, that it was indispensable for the assessment to be carried out by a psychiatric expert (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 29, Series A no. 75; C.B. v. Romania, no. 21207/03, § 56, 20 April 2010; and Tupa v. the Czech Republic, no. 39822/07, § 47, 26 May 2011).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  The Court finds at the outset that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention constitutes a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 60, Series A no. 77).
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 517/02

  KOLANIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  Referring to the Court's judgments in the cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, §§ 39 and 55, Series A no. 33) and Kolanis v. the United Kingdom (no. 517/02, § 67, ECHR 2005-V), the applicant took the view that his continued confinement could only be compatible with the Convention if it was reliably shown, by means of objective medical expertise, that he was suffering from a true mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting such confinement.
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 13453/07

  WITEK CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  As regards the qualifications of the medical expert in question, the Court considers in general that the national authorities are better placed than itself to evaluate them (see, mutatis mutandis, Sabeva v. Bulgaria, no. 44290/07, § 58, 10 June 2010; Witek v. Poland, no. 13453/07, § 46, 21 December 2010; and Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, § 47, 17 January 2012), but it has previously observed, in certain specific cases, and in particular where the person confined had no history of mental disorders, that it was indispensable for the assessment to be carried out by a psychiatric expert (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 29, Series A no. 75; C.B. v. Romania, no. 21207/03, § 56, 20 April 2010; and Tupa v. the Czech Republic, no. 39822/07, § 47, 26 May 2011).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  As regards the qualifications of the medical expert in question, the Court considers in general that the national authorities are better placed than itself to evaluate them (see, mutatis mutandis, Sabeva v. Bulgaria, no. 44290/07, § 58, 10 June 2010; Witek v. Poland, no. 13453/07, § 46, 21 December 2010; and Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, § 47, 17 January 2012), but it has previously observed, in certain specific cases, and in particular where the person confined had no history of mental disorders, that it was indispensable for the assessment to be carried out by a psychiatric expert (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 29, Series A no. 75; C.B. v. Romania, no. 21207/03, § 56, 20 April 2010; and Tupa v. the Czech Republic, no. 39822/07, § 47, 26 May 2011).
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 39822/07

  TUPA CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  DANCY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 22883/05

  CRISTIAN TEODORESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 53783/09

  Vereinbarkeit der Unterbringung und der Fortdauer der Unterbringung einer …

• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 52089/09

  DERUNGS c. SUISSE

  Il n'en veut pas moins un contrôle assez ample pour s'étendre à chacune des conditions indispensables à la « légalité'de la détention d'un individu au regard du paragraphe 1 (Stanev c. Bulgarie [GC], no 36760/06, § 171, 17 janvier 2012 ; et Ruiz Rivera c. Suisse, no 8300/06, § 67, 18 février 2014).
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 45953/10

  D.J. v. GERMANY

  Die Verhältnismäßigkeit der Entscheidung, die Unterbringung einer Person zu verlängern, um die Allgemeinheit vor weiteren Straftaten dieser Person zu schützen, wird insbesondere infrage gestellt, wenn die innerstaatlichen Gerichte offensichtlich über unzureichendes Material verfügten, welches die Schlussfolgerung nahelegte, dass die betreffende Person weiterhin eine Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit darstellt, vornehmlich, weil die Gerichte es unterließen, unabdingbare und hinlänglich aktuelle Sachverständigengutachten einzuholen (…siehe im Zusammenhang mit Sicherungsverwahrung D./. Deutschland a. a. O. und H. W../. Deutschland, a. a. O., Rdnr. 107; vgl. sinngemäß im Kontext von Artikel 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e und Artikel 5 Abs. 4: Ruiz Rivera./. Schweiz, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 8300/06, Rdnr. 60, 18. Februar 2014).
• EGMR, 25.02.2016 - 53157/11

  KLINKENBUSS v. GERMANY

  Die Verhältnismäßigkeit der Entscheidung, die Unterbringung einer Person zu verlängern, um die Allgemeinheit vor weiteren Straftaten dieser Person zu schützen, wird insbesondere in Frage gestellt, wenn die innerstaatlichen Gerichte offensichtlich über unzureichendes Material verfügten, welches die Schlussfolgerung nahelegte, dass die betreffende Person weiterhin eine Gefahr für die Allgemeinheit darstellt, vornehmlich, weil die Gerichte es unterließen, unabdingbare und aktuelle Sachverständigengutachten einzuholen (D../. Deutschland (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 2894/08, 22. Januar 2013; und H. W../. Deutschland, a. a. O., Rdnr. 107; vgl. sinngemäß im Kontext von Artikel 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e und Artikel 5 Abs. 4, Ruiz Rivera./. Schweiz, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 8300/06, Rdnr. 60, 18.
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 44183/12

  BÄCKER v. GERMANY

  In diesem Zusammenhang weist der Gerichtshof erneut darauf hin, dass es in erster Linie Aufgabe der nationalen Behörden ist, die ihnen in einem bestimmten Fall vorgebrachten Beweise zu würdigen und insbesondere den Beweiswert der Sachverständigengutachten zu beurteilen (vgl. Ruiz Rivera./. Schweiz, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 8300/06, Rdnr. 59, 18. Februar 2014, mit weiteren Nachweisen, Vogt./. Schweiz (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 45553/06, 3. Juni 2014).