Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2002,20809
EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,20809)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.02.2002 - 51564/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,20809)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Februar 2002 - 51564/99 (https://dejure.org/2002,20809)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,20809) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

  • Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration

    EMRK Art. 5 Abs. 1; EMRK Art. 5 Abs. 2; EMRK Art. 5 Abs. 4; EMRK Art. 13
    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit der Person, Inhaftierung, Verfahren, faires Verfahren, Information, Begründungserfordernis, Kollektivausweisung, Massenabschiebung, Abschiebung, Rechtsweggarantie

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CONKA v. BELGIUM

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 3, Art. 13+P4 Abs. 4 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-2 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of P4-4 No violation of Art. 13+3 Violation of Art. 13+P4-4 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CONKA c. BELGIQUE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4... Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3 Abs. 1, Art. 13+P4 Abs. 4 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 5-1 Non-violation de l'art. 5-2 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de P4-4 Non-violation de l'art. 13+3 Violation de l'art. 13+P4-4 Préjudice moral - réparation ...

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (94)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
    14. Even if one accepts the majority's view that the effectiveness of a remedy concerning a complaint of a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 depends on its having suspensive effect, it should to be noted that under the case-law of the Court the remedy is not required to be automatically suspensive; it suffices that it has suspensive effect "in practice" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 48, § 123, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 125).

    These considerations lead me to conclude that there has been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No 4. As regards Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, it is the settled case-law of the Court that the Contracting States are afforded a certain margin of appreciation regarding the manner in which they comply with the obligations imposed on them by Article 13. In addition, when it is alleged that an imminent measure will expose the person concerned to the risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, only a remedy that has suspensive effect, if not automatically at least in practice, will be an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 48, § 123, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 125).

  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
    14. Even if one accepts the majority's view that the effectiveness of a remedy concerning a complaint of a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 depends on its having suspensive effect, it should to be noted that under the case-law of the Court the remedy is not required to be automatically suspensive; it suffices that it has suspensive effect "in practice" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 48, § 123, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 125).

    These considerations lead me to conclude that there has been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No 4. As regards Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, it is the settled case-law of the Court that the Contracting States are afforded a certain margin of appreciation regarding the manner in which they comply with the obligations imposed on them by Article 13. In addition, when it is alleged that an imminent measure will expose the person concerned to the risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, only a remedy that has suspensive effect, if not automatically at least in practice, will be an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 48, § 123, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 125).

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
    Although the words "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" essentially refer to the domestic legislation and therefore state "the need for compliance with the relevant procedure under that law", in Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 19-20, § 45) the Court nonetheless added: "... the domestic law must itself be in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein." 3. The ruse used by the Belgian police must therefore be examined in the light of the "general principles" of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
    89. The Court points out that, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], no. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

    BOZANO v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
    39. Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 23, § 54, and Chahal, cited above, p. 1864, § 118).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 8139/09

    Othman (Abu Qatada) ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 75, ECHR 2002 I; and Onoufriou v. Cyprus, no. 24407/04, §§ 119-121, 7 January 2010).
  • EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

    D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    Toutefois, l'Etat défendeur reste libre de choisir les moyens de s'acquitter de son obligation juridique au regard de l'article 46 de la Convention, pour autant que ces moyens soient compatibles avec les conclusions contenues dans l'arrêt de la Cour (Broniowski, précité, § 192 ; Conka c. Belgique, no 51564/99, § 89, CEDH 2002-I).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

    Thus, in a different context, the Court did not accept that a police ruse (nevertheless described by the Government as a 'little ruse") was compatible with the right to liberty within the meaning of Article 5 (see ?onka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 41-46, ECHR 2002"I).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht