Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  Seeing that these circumstances constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom, only a narrow interpretation is consistent with the aim of this provision (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42 in limine, ECHR 2002-I, and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 396, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  The Court therefore finds that the flaw in the very act of the applicant's arrest was so fundamental as to render it arbitrary and ex facie invalid from the outset (see also, mutatis mutandis, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 165, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  However, the national authorities must attempt to keep it to a minimum (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 17, § 42; Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, judgment of 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1191, § 25 in fine; K.-F. v. Germany, judgment of 27 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2675, § 71; and Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, § 24, ECHR 2001-IX).

 
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  However, in order to reach a firm conclusion, the special circumstances of the case have to be taken into account (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined a similar situation in the case of Garabayev v. Russia (no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007).
• EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  GALLIANI v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the case the authorities" failure to review without a delay the lawfulness of the applicant's detention, in principle, deprived the review of the requisite effectiveness (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000 and Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, §§ 61-62, 10 June 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Kolanis v. the United Kingdom, no. 517/02, § 82, ECHR 2005-V).

• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 62116/12

  Aufnahmebedingungen, Ungarn, Inhaftierung, Recht auf Freiheit, Abschiebung, …

  Here, the Court reiterates that although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see W?och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, § 45, 10 June 2008; Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 44, 26 February 2009; and Longa Yonkeu v. Latvia, no. 57229/09, § 121, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  YEFIMOVA v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, it considers that the issue of speediness of review in the present case closely overlaps with the issue of its effectiveness (see Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 68, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances that prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law - for example, where national law did not allow for deportation pending a decision on asylum (see R.U. v. Greece, no. 2237/08, §§ 88-96, 7 June 2011, and Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 142-144, 25 September 2012), or where extradition was excluded from the outset owing to the applicant's nationality (see Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, and Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010) or owing to the applicant's refugee status (Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, §§ 7, 17 and 48, 26 February 2009), or where detention for the purpose of extradition was rendered arbitrary from the moment that the decision to grant the applicant refugee status became final and binding (Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 10.11.2011 - 19246/10

  MOKALLAL v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the prominent place which the right to liberty holds in a democratic society, the respondent State should have deployed all modern means of communication of information to keep to a minimum the delay in implementing the decision to release the applicant, as required by the relevant case-law (see, mutatis mutandis, Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 49, 26 February 2009).