Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HADI v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 29798/96

  LLOYD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

  In these circumstances the Court considers that the procedural flaw in question did not amount to a "gross or obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the case-law (compare Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 et seq., § 114, 1 March 2005).

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

  The fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001; Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 47; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007).

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  A detention order must be considered as ex facie invalid if the flaw in the order amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the Court's case-law (compare Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Marturana, cited above, § 79).

  The Court reiterates that defects in a detention order do not necessarily render the underlying detention "unlawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. The Court has to examine whether the flaw in the order against the applicant amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" so as to render the underlying period of his detention unlawful (see Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 79, 4 March 2008; and Mooren, cited above, § 84).

 
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  In this connection the Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, Article 5 § 4 enshrines, as does Article 6 § 1, the right of access to a court, which can only be subject to reasonable limitations that do not impair its very essence (see Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, §§ 82-90, ECHR 2003-I, and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 70, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  In the context of sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1, the Court considered that an interval of two weeks between the expiry of the earlier order of detention in a psychiatric hospital and the making of the succeeding renewal order could in no way be regarded as unreasonable or excessive so that this delay did not involve an arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 49, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (compare Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111; and Saadi, cited above, § 69) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham, cited above, § 47; Liu, cited above, § 82; and Marturana, cited above, § 80).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  A subsequent finding of a superior domestic court that a lower court erred under domestic law in making the order will not necessarily retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention (see, inter alia, Benham, cited above, § 42; Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 31464/96, § 45, 4 August 1999; Minjat v. Switzerland, no. 38223/97, § 41, 28 October 2003; and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 128, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  The Court must further ascertain in this connection whether domestic law itself is in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein, notably the principle of legal certainty (compare Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007).

• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09

  SEBALJ v. CROATIA

  At the outset the Court reiterates that in a number of its decisions and judgments concerning Croatia it has already examined various issues about the fairness of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court as well as issues concerning the rights guaranteed under Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Jankovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000-X; Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, §§ 36 and 37, 5 February 2009; Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 108- 110, ECHR 2010-...; Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, §§ 112-126, 8 April 2010; and HaÄ?i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, §§ 43-47, 1 July 2010).

  By declaring the applicant's constitutional complaints inadmissible simply because a fresh decision extending his detention had been adopted in the meantime, the Constitutional Court did not satisfy the requirement "that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy" (see Pesa v. Croatia, no. 40523/08, § 126, 8 April 2010, and HaÄ?i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 47, 1 July 2010).

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 28869/03

  PROSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  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 HaÄ?i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, § 41, 1 July 2010, with further references).
• EGMR - 27055/22 (anhängig)

  BOGDANIC v. CROATIA

  In view of the fact that the Constitutional Court examined the applicant's pre-trial detention only in the period following the applicant's transfer to Croatia, i.e. did not examine the lawfulness of his detention in Germany, was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Vasiliciuc, cited above, §§ 37-38, and HaÄ‘i v. Croatia, no. 42998/08, §§ 41-48, 1 July 2010)?.