Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STOYAN KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

  Admittedly, in determining whether or not there has been a violation of Convention rights it is often necessary to look beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrate on the realities of the situation (see, in relation to Article 5 § 1, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

  The Court has repeatedly held that, in order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting-point must be the person's concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see, among many other authorities, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 57, ECHR 2012; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39, and Mogos v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42117/98

  BOLLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

  Generally, however, disciplinary steps, imposed formally or informally, which have effects on conditions of detention within a prison, cannot be considered to constitute deprivation of liberty (see Bollan v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

  The Court has repeatedly held that, in order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting-point must be the person's concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see, among many other authorities, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 57, ECHR 2012; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39, and Mogos v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

  The Court has repeatedly held that, in order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting-point must be the person's concrete situation, and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see, among many other authorities, De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09 and 2 others, § 57, ECHR 2012; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39, and Mogos v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004).

• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 2809/18

  KAGANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court will first establish whether the applicant's confinement in the KPRI unit between 27 June and 6 July 2017 constituted a modification of the conditions of an already existing "lawful detention" at the KPRI (if any) thus falling outside the scope of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and falling instead under Article 3 (see Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V, and Stoyan Krastev v. Bulgaria, no. 1009/12, § 38, 6 October 2020) or, if the applicant was not "lawfully detained" at the KPRI, whether the above-mentioned confinement in itself constituted a "deprivation of liberty" falling under Article 5 § 1.