Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KALISZ v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  The Court reiterates that an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty on the basis of unsoundness of mind unless three minimum conditions are satisfied: he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; and Sabeva v. Bulgaria, no. 44290/07, § 56, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  Nonetheless, it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  Nevertheless, Article 5 § 4 guarantees a remedy that must be accessible to the person concerned and must afford the possibility of reviewing compliance with the conditions to be satisfied if the detention of a person of unsound mind is to be regarded as "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 52, Series A no. 93).

 
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  Nonetheless, it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  The notion of "lawfulness" under paragraph 4 of Article 5 has the same meaning as in paragraph 1, so that a detained person is entitled to a review of the "lawfulness" of his detention in the light not only of the requirements of domestic law but also of the Convention, the general principles embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 § 1. The reviewing "court" must not have merely advisory functions but must have the competence to "decide" the "lawfulness" of the detention and to order release if the detention is unlawful (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 200, Series A no. 25; Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 130, Reports 1996-V; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.3455/05, § 202, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  In the X. case the Court found that an opportunity to receive an opinion from an outside physician constituted an important safeguard against possible arbitrariness in decision-making where the continuation of confinement in involuntary care is concerned (X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 169, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 15753/12

  The national authorities have a certain margin of appreciation regarding the merits of clinical diagnoses, since it is in the first place for them to evaluate the evidence in a particular case: the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 40, and Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75).