Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAUDEVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) Violation of Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Raudevs v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 24086/03
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03
• EGMR, 05.07.2017 - 24086/03

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  The Court refers to the recapitulation of the principles applicable to the analysis of whether a deprivation of liberty has been in conformity with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and reiterates that before determining whether the applicant has been reliably shown to have been suffering from a mental illness of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, and whether the validity of his continued confinement depended on the persistence of the mental illness (see, among other authorities, Winterwerp, cited above, §§ 37-39, reiterated in L.M. v. Latvia, no. 26000/02, § 46, 19 July 2011), it must establish whether the applicant's detention was carried out "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and was "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 112, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  According to the Government, when ordering the compulsory confinement, the national courts had relied on the above findings and had duly evaluated the applicant's individual circumstances, thus fulfilling the necessary conditions set out in the case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  It also refers to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  In the Grand Chamber judgment Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012), the Court summarised its Article 5 § 5 case-law in relation to the right to compensation where detention has been effected contrary to the guarantees enshrined by Article 5 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  The Court reiterates that matters relating to the execution of detention form part of the broader notion of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 44, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  Where lawfulness of detention is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used, because the right to have the lawfulness of detention examined by a court and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, inter alia, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI, Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos.
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  The Court refers to the recapitulation of the principles applicable to the analysis of whether a deprivation of liberty has been in conformity with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, §§ 144-151, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and reiterates that before determining whether the applicant has been reliably shown to have been suffering from a mental illness of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, and whether the validity of his continued confinement depended on the persistence of the mental illness (see, among other authorities, Winterwerp, cited above, §§ 37-39, reiterated in L.M. v. Latvia, no. 26000/02, § 46, 19 July 2011), it must establish whether the applicant's detention was carried out "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and was "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 112, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  The above principle suggests that if the measure is not carried out immediately, in order to be lawful in the light of Article 5 of the Convention there has to be an opportunity to acquire an assessment to verify the necessity of medical confinement within a reasonable time before its execution (see, mutatis mutandis, Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 28, Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  In this connection the Court has stated that Article 5 § 1, although cumulative with the protection guaranteed under Article 5 § 4, strictly regulates the circumstances in which one's liberty can be taken away (see H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 114, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  The Government referred to the Court's conclusions in Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia ((dec.) no. 36117/02, 13 February 2003, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)), where it was held that where an individual calls into question a provision of a Latvian legislation or regulation as being contrary to the Convention, and the right relied on is among those guaranteed by the Latvian Constitution, proceedings should, in principle, be brought before the Constitutional Court prior to being brought before the Court.
• EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 38287/02

  VAN GLABEKE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 67531/01

  GORSHKOV v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  K.C. v. POLAND

  Indeed, no provision was made for such an assessment under the relevant legislation (see Stanev, cited above, § 158, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 169, ECHR 2012, and paragraph 40 above and compare Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 86, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  L.M. v. SLOVENIA

  8080/08 and 8577/08, § 49, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 62, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 45797/09

  ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  The Court has held in its case-law that where the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used, because the right not to be deprived of one's liberty "save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, inter alia, Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 151, 5 February 2009; Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 49, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 62, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 6752/13

  O.G. v. LATVIA

  In this connection, the Convention essentially refers back to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among other authorities, Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 68, 17 December 2013).