Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-....; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; and Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, §§ 67 and 68).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  The Court reiterates that any interference with an individual's right to respect for his private and family life will constitute a breach of Article 8, unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim or aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society" in the sense that it was proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 99, ECHR 2003-X).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  However, a law which confers discretion is not in itself inconsistent with the requirement of "foreseeability" (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, § 61).
• EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

  MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 32 and 34, ECHR 2006-....; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002; and Malone v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, §§ 67 and 68).

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  76. One general principle established in the caselaw is that detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111; Saadi, cited above, § 69; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, §§ 77-79, 9 July 2009) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 47, Reports 1996-III; Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007; and Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 80, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

  Der Gerichtshof hat in seiner neueren Rechtsprechung unter Hinweis auf eine nach englischem Recht getroffene vergleichbare Unterscheidung (…vgl. Rechtssache Benham, a. a. O., Randnrn. 43-46; und Lloyd u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 29798/96 u. a. Randnrn. 102, 105 ff., 1. März 2005) die Umstände näher bezeichnet, unter denen die Freiheitsentziehung im genannten zu Grunde liegenden Zeitraum im Sinne von Artikel 5 Abs. 1 noch rechtmäßig war: Bei der Beurteilung der Vereinbarkeit mit Artikel 5 Abs. 1 der Konvention ist grundsätzlich zwischen ex facie unwirksamen Haftbefehlen, bei deren Erlass ein Gericht z. B. seine Zuständigkeit überschritten hat (siehe Rechtssache Marturana ./. Italien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 63154/00, Randnr. 78, 4. März 2008) oder bei denen dem Betroffenen der Anhörungstermin nicht ordnungsgemäß mitgeteilt worden ist (…siehe Rechtssachen Khudoyorov, a. a. O. Randnr. 129; und Liu ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 42086/05, Randnr. 79, 6. Dezember 2007), und Haftbefehlen zu unterscheiden, die prima facie rechtsgültig und wirksam sind, soweit sie nicht von einem übergeordneten Gericht aufgehoben werden (…a. a. O.).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 57818/09

  LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Also, the law must be sufficiently clear in its terms to give individuals an adequate indication as to the circumstances in which and the conditions on which public authorities are entitled to interfere with the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 56, 6 December 2007; Gülmez v. Turkey, no. 16330/02, § 49, 20 May 2008; Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 125, 12 June 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 76, 10 March 2009).

 
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  HADI v. CROATIA

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

  The fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001; Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 47; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 57180/09

  BERNOBIC v. CROATIA

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

  The Court reiterates that defects in a detention order do not necessarily render the underlying detention "unlawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. The Court has to examine whether the flaw in the order against the applicant amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" so as to render the underlying period of his detention unlawful (see Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 81, 6 December 2007; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 79, 4 March 2008; and Mooren, cited above, § 84).

• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  SEKS v. CROATIA

  If there was no possibility of challenging effectively the executive's assertion that national security was at stake, the State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention (see Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, §§ 85-87, 6 December 2007, and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, §§ 123-24, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111, and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, §§ 77-79, 9 July 2009) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham, cited above, § 47; Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007; and Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 80, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 59133/11

  FERNANDES PEDROSO c. PORTUGAL

  D'après l'un des principes généraux consacrés par la jurisprudence de la Cour, une détention est « arbitraire'lorsque, même si elle est parfaitement conforme à la législation nationale, il y a eu un élément de mauvaise foi ou de tromperie de la part des autorités (voir, par exemple, Bozano c. France, 18 décembre 1986, § 59, série A no 111) ou lorsque les autorités internes ne se sont pas employées à appliquer correctement la législation pertinente (voir, par exemple, Benham c. Royaume-Uni, 10 juin 1996, § 47, Recueil 1996-III, Liou c. Russie, no 42086/05, § 82, 6 décembre 2007, et Marturana c. Italie, no 63154/00, § 80, 4 mars 2008).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 14656/15

  VADALÀ v. ITALY

  The Court considers that the applicant's detention had a lawful basis in domestic law, and the fact that the sentence imposed on him was subsequently reduced from life imprisonment to thirty years' imprisonment is not in itself sufficient to retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention, given that it has not exceeded the term of thirty years, corresponding to the reduced sentence within the summary procedure (see paragraph 7 above; see, mutatis mutandis, Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008, and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 3342/11

  RICHMOND YAW ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Une décision de placement en détention doit être considérée comme étant ex facie invalide si le vice y ayant été décelé s'analyse en une « irrégularité grave et manifeste ", au sens exceptionnel indiqué dans la jurisprudence de la Cour (Liu c. Russie, no 42086/05, § 81, 6 décembre 2007, Garabayev c. Russie, no 38411/02, § 89, 7 juin 2007, Marturana c. Italie, no 63154/00, § 79, 4 mars 2008, et Mooren, précité, § 75).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

  HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

  SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 3449/05

  HOKIC ET HRUSTIC c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 66066/09

  DINÇ ET ÇAKIR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  F.A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 44696/13

  KASANGAKI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  ALIM v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  KLEYN v. RUSSIA