Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NELISSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and as a recent authority, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and as a recent authority, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see, among other authorities, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 41, Series A no. 24; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172; Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; and as a recent authority, Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  Article 5 § 4 requires that the procedures followed have a judicial character and give to the individual concerned guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question; in order to determine whether a proceeding provides adequate guarantees, regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceeding takes place (see Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22; and Nakach v. the Netherlands (dec), cited above).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  It should be added that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see, among many other authorities, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 45, ECHR 2006-II, and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 36609/16

  I.L. c. SUISSE (N° 2)

  Dans d'autres affaires, tout en constatant que la privation de liberté des requérants relevait à la fois des alinéas a) et e) de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention, la Cour a examiné la « régularité'de leur détention à la lumière des seuls critères développés sur le terrain de l'alinéa e) de cette disposition (X c. Royaume-Uni, 5 novembre 1981, §§ 38-47, série A no 46, Erkalo c. Pays-Bas, 2 septembre 1998, §§ 50-60, Recueil 1998-VI, Brand c. Pays-Bas, no 49902/99, §§ 58-67, 11 mai 2004, Morsink c. Pays-Bas, no 48865/99, §§ 61-70, 11 mai 2004, et Nelissen c. Pays-Bas, no 6051/07, §§ 59-61, 5 avril 2011).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 58600/12

  EBERHARD v. GERMANY

  Sie erkannte das Vorliegen von Konventionsverletzungen insoweit klar an, als ihr die Beschwerde durch den Gerichtshof übermittelt wurde (siehe Artikel 62A Abs. 1 Buchst. b der Verfahrensordnung;… vgl. im Hinblick auf dieses Erfordernis auch Missenjov./. Estland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43276/06, Rdnr. 25, 29. Januar 2009; und Nelissen./. Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 6051/07, Rdnr. 39, 5. April 2011).