Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09
• EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 52942/09

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  In this respect the Court notes that according to its established case-law, coercion is a crucial element in its examination of whether or not someone has been deprived of his or her liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, §§ 74-79, 24 June 2008, and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 186-193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  This applies in particular to cases in which Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is at stake; the Court must then exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision, and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 109, 23 May 2006; and Bulea v. Romania, no. 27804/10, § 57, 3 December 2013).

• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

  This may be the case even when there is no direct physical restraint of the applicant, such as by handcuffing or placement in a locked cell (see, for instance, Popoviciu v. Romania, no. 52942/09, § 59, 1 March 2016; Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 100, 13 November 2014; Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania, no. 41040/11, § 89, 13 January 2015; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 70, 16 September 2014; Ghiurau v. Romania, no. 55421/10, § 80, 20 November 2012; Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 36, 26 June 2014, with further references therein; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 29535/23 (anhängig)

  DODON c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La restriction à la liberté pour le requérant de quitter le territoire de l'État défendeur était-elle nécessaire, au sens de l'article 2 § 3 du Protocole no 4 à la Convention (Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, §§ 82 et 88-91, 1er mars 2016, et Pagerie c. France, no 24203/16, §§ 193-96, 19 janvier 2023) ?.