Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 10 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 68294/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 20.04.1999 - 27312/95

  KOKAVECZ v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among others, Aquilina v. Malta, [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, recently, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 25594/94

  HASHMAN AND HARRUP v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  Since the requirement under Article 10 § 2 that an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression be "prescribed by law" is similar to that under Article 5 § 1 that any deprivation of liberty be "lawful" (see Steel and Others, cited above, p. 2742, § 94; and Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 25594/94, § 34 in fine, ECHR 1999-VIII), it follows that the applicant's arrest and detention were not "prescribed by law" under Article 10 § 2.

 
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among others, Aquilina v. Malta, [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, recently, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  HARIS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).
• EGMR, 25.08.1993 - 13308/87

  CHORHERR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  His arrest and subsequent detention for doing so therefore amounted, quite apart from the opening of criminal proceedings against him, to an interference with the exercise of this right (see Chorherr v. Austria, judgment of 25 August 1993, § 23, Series A no. 266-B; and Steel and Others, cited above, §§ 92 and 93).
• EGMR, 28.11.1991 - 12843/87

  KOSTER c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  The Court sees no special difficulties or exceptional circumstances which would have prevented the authorities from bringing the applicant before a judge much sooner (see, mutatis mutandis, Koster v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 November 1991, § 25, Series A no. 221; and Rigopoulos v. Spain (dec.), no. 37388/97, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  Furthermore, the dominant position which the Government and its members occupy makes it necessary for them - and for the authorities in general - to display restraint in resorting to criminal proceedings, and the associated custodial measures, particularly where other means are available for replying to the unjustified attacks and criticisms of their adversaries (see, mutatis mutandis, Castells v. Spain, judgment of 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE