Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 Violation de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 5-5 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O'HARA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 37555/97
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EuGH, 23.01.2003 - C-421/00

  Sterbenz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

  16/01/2002.

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  Where, for example, detention is sought to be justified by reference to the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) in order to bring a person before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, the Court has insisted upon the need for the authorities to furnish some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence in question (see James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25119/09 and 2 others, § 193, 18 September 2012, and O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34-35, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 13229/03

  Großbritannien (A), Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Europäische …

  The condition that there be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 50; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 28749/18

  Freilassung von Osman Kavala gefordert

  Even the exigencies of dealing with terrorist crimes cannot justify stretching the notion of "reasonableness" to the point where the essence of the safeguard secured by Article 5 § 1 (c) is impaired (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley, cited above, § 32; Murray v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1994, § 51, Series A no. 300-A; and O"Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 35, ECHR 2001-X).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 18052/11

  Belgien verurteilt: Vergewaltiger jahrelang nicht auf Deutsch therapiert

  For arbitrariness to be excluded, conformity with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 is required in respect of both the ordering and the execution of the measures involving deprivation of liberty (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 50, Series A no. 129; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 67 and 69, ECHR 2008; and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, § 186, 28 November 2017.
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 1774/11

  NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the condition that there be no arbitrariness demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, § 50; O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X; and Hakobyan and Others, cited above, §§ 107 and 123).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Thus, facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction, or even the bringing of a charge which comes at the next stage of the process of criminal investigation (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34 and 36, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38623/03

  PICHUGIN v. RUSSIA

  This requires the existence of some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence, though what may be regarded as reasonable will depend on all the circumstances of the case (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X, and Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, p. 16, § 32).
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 39084/97

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  As to the assertion that the statements of Mr Hamanov would be insufficient to secure the conviction of the applicant, the Court observes that the standard imposed by Article 5 § 1 (c) does not presuppose that the facts which raise a suspicion should be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03

  LAZARIU v. ROMANIA

  The condition that there must be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 50, Series A no. 129; and O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09

  JAMES, WELLS AND LEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Where, for example, detention is sought to be justified by reference to Article 5 § 1 (c) in order to bring a person before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, the Court has insisted upon the need for the authorities to furnish some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence in question (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34-35, ECHR 2001-X).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 56425/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 54578/00

  ALEXOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2004 - 41211/98

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 12254/20

  YAYGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 36897/07

  BILAL AKYILDIZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 3052/06

  ADAMOV c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 36988/07

  IGNATENCO v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 28674/03

  SLAVCHO KOSTOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 30237/18

  GAPO?...ENKO v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00

  MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 64741/01

  BULDUS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 43231/98

  E.M.K. v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 20510/02

  VAN THUIL v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 39510/98

  A.S. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA