Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CONSTANCIA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 40, Series A no. 46; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 37, Series A no. 93; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 40, Series A no. 46; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 37, Series A no. 93; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  In deciding whether an individual should be detained as a "person of unsound mind", the national authorities are to be recognised as having a certain discretion since it is in the first place for them to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see, in particular, Winterwerp, cited above, § 40; X v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 43; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75; Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244; Stanev, cited above, § 155; and X v. Finland, cited above, § 150).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 40, Series A no. 46; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 37, Series A no. 93; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  In deciding whether an individual should be detained as a "person of unsound mind", the national authorities are to be recognised as having a certain discretion since it is in the first place for them to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see, in particular, Winterwerp, cited above, § 40; X v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 43; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75; Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244; Stanev, cited above, § 155; and X v. Finland, cited above, § 150).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  In those circumstances, a detention that was lawful at the outset will be transformed into a deprivation of liberty that is arbitrary and, hence, incompatible with Article 5 (see Van Droogenbroeck, loc. cit.; Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 49, Series A no. 114; Eriksen, cited above, § 78; and M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  The deprivation of liberty must be shown to have been necessary in the circumstances (see generally Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III), § 78, ECHR 2000-III, and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 36, ECHR 2005-I; with particular reference to the detention of persons of unsound mind, see Varbanov, cited above, § 46; Stanev, cited above, § 143; and X v. Finland, cited above, § 151).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 40, Series A no. 46; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 37, Series A no. 93; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his or her liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 40, Series A no. 46; Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 37, Series A no. 93; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  Moreover, the Court has accepted, in another case where a punitive prison sentence was followed by further detention in the interests of public safety and rehabilitation, that the Convention allows a measure of indeterminacy in sentencing (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 40, Series A no. 50).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 36609/16

  I.L. c. SUISSE (N° 2)

  Dans les affaires Lorenz c. Autriche (no 11537/11, §§ 59-65, 20 juillet 2017), Constancia c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 73560/12, §§ 24-32, 3 mars 2015, et Mandalozzo c. Suisse ((déc.), no 19338/18, §§ 28-51, 3 décembre 2019), la Cour a examiné la régularité de la détention des requérants internés sous l'angle tant de l'alinéa a) que de l'alinéa e) de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA

  Where no other possibility exists, for instance because the person concerned has refused to appear for an examination, a medical expert's assessment on the basis of the case file of the actual state of that person's mental health must at least be sought, failing which it cannot be maintained that the person has reliably been shown to be of unsound mind, which would in turn render his or her further detention unlawful (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 47, ECHR 2000-X, and Constancia v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 73560/12, § 26, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 6281/13

  Verurteilte Gewalttäter: Regeln zur Sicherungsverwahrung bestätigt

  Wenn keine andere Möglichkeit besteht, etwa weil die betroffene Person eine Begutachtung verweigert, ist zumindest die Einschätzung eines ärztlichen Sachverständigen zum tatsächlichen psychischen Zustand der Person nach Aktenlage einzuholen; andernfalls kann nicht davon ausgegangen werden, dass eine psychische Erkrankung der Person zuverlässig nachgewiesen wurde (…siehe Varbanov./. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 31365/96, Rdnr. 47, ECHR 2000-X, und Constancia./. Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73560/12, Rdnr. 26, 3.

 
• EGMR, 24.01.2022 - 11791/20

  SY c. ITALIE

  À défaut d'autres possibilités, du fait par exemple du refus de l'intéressé de se présenter à un examen, il faut au moins demander qu'un expert médical se livre à une évaluation sur la base du dossier, sinon on ne peut soutenir que l'aliénation de l'intéressé a été établie de manière probante (Varbanov c. Bulgarie, no 31365/96, § 47, CEDH 2000-X, et Constancia c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 73560/12, § 26, 3 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 18.02.2016 - 62054/12

  BLÜHDORN v. GERMANY

  Angesichts der von den innerstaatlichen Gerichten angeführten Gründe ist klar, dass der Grund für die Nichteinholung eines neuen externen Sachverständigengutachtens darin bestand, dass der Beschwerdeführer sich zu der Zeit ausdrücklich weigerte, sich von einem Sachverständigen begutachen zu lassen (siehe Rdnrn. 21 und 22; vgl., sinngemäß, Constancia./. die Niederlande (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 73560/12, Rdnr. 30, 30.
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 82087/17

  D.C. c. BELGIQUE

  L'évaluation médicale doit reposer sur l'état de santé mentale réel de l'intéressé et non pas uniquement sur des faits passés (Varbanov, précité, § 47, et Constancia c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 73560/12, § 26, 3 mars 2015).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  P.W. v. AUSTRIA

  Where no other possibility exists, for instance owing to a refusal of the person concerned to appear for an examination, at least an assessment by a medical expert on the basis of the file must be sought, failing which it cannot be maintained that the person has reliably been shown to be of unsound mind (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 47, ECHR 2000-X, and Constancia v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 73560/12, § 26, 3 March 2015).