Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRASNIQI v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  The Court firstly observes that as from the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, the person is detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 24 to 26, 16 January 2007; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 36-39, Series A no. 175; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, 2009).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention requires that normal recourse should be had by an applicant only to remedies that relate to the breaches alleged and which, at the same time, are available and sufficient (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33; Saadi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 67; and Mooren, cited above, § 72).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  The standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention thus requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 54, Reports 1998-VII, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  This primarily requires any detention to have a legal basis in domestic law but also relates 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 Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 63, ECHR 2002-IV and Kafkaris, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  The Court firstly observes that as from the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, the person is detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 24 to 26, 16 January 2007; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 36-39, Series A no. 175; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, 2009).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10

  BRUNNER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  10/10/2012.
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  The Court firstly observes that as from the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, the person is detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 24 to 26, 16 January 2007; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 36-39, Series A no. 175; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, 2009).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  "Quality of the law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996-III; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 30.11.2007 - 8/07

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4137/10

  The relevant part of decision no. II 5 Kr 8/07-2 of 23 November 2007 reads:.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 75068/12

  DRAGIN v. CROATIA

  Even if the Court could accept, as the applicant suggested, that the wording of Article 109 creates some doubt as to the manner of calculation of the maximum permissible period of detention, it notes that any possible lack of clarity as regards the maximum period of detention was remedied by the detailed guidelines adopted at a meeting of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court on 23 March 2006 (see paragraph 83 above; Krasniqi v. Croatia, no. 4137/10, §§ 37 and 28, 10 July 2012, and Grubic v. Croatia, no. 5384/11, §§ 40 and 41, 30 October 2012).
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 40009/12

  GOGUADZE v. GEORGIA

  If not the only preventive remedy available to the applicant, such proceedings clearly constituted the most effective one as they could have led to his immediate release if his initial detention had been ruled unlawful (see, in this respect, Article 176 of the CCP cited in paragraph 36 above; see also, Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 14305/17, § 132, 20 November 2018, and Krasniqi v. Croatia, no. 4137/10, § 27, 10 July 2012; contrast with Lelyuk, cited above, in which the Court concluded that obtaining a judicial declaration of the unlawfulness of detention by the applicant three years later, and after his release, could not be regarded as providing sufficient redress).