Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,16309) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DAVIDOVS v. LATVIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06
- EGMR, 09.11.2016 - 45559/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06
The Court notes that, according to its case-law, in a situation where the person was still detained, an effective remedy under Article 5 § 3 should be able to lead to the lifting of the detention order (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 45, ECHR 2006-X). - EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06
Such situation is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX), and poses a problem under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see Svipsta, cited above, § 85). - EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95
BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06
Such situation is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX), and poses a problem under Article 5 § 1 (c) (see Svipsta, cited above, § 85). - EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 5436/05
KIPENS v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 45559/06
It shall therefore dismiss, similarly as in Ķipens v. Latvia (dec.), no. 5436/05, § 47, 5 March 2013, the argument that a later compensatory remedy, as argued by the Government, could have been adequate and sufficient in the particular case.