Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.09.2001 - 55263/00
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

  MUSIAL c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  In particular, the competent court should examine not only compliance with the procedural requirements set out in domestic law, but also the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001) and should have the power to order the termination of the deprivation of liberty if it proves unlawful (see Musial v. Poland [GC], no. 24557/94, § 43, 25 March 1999, ECHR 1999-II, and Vodenicarov v. Slovakia, no. 24530/94, § 33, 21 December 2000).

  Moreover, the Court recalls that Article 5 § 4, in guaranteeing to persons arrested or detained a right to take proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention (see Musial v. Poland [GC], no. 24557/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  As concerns the applicant's failure to pursue his claim before the First Hall of the Civil Court, it is to be recalled that the aim of Article 5 § 4 is to ensure a "speedy" review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for instance, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  In particular, the competent court should examine not only compliance with the procedural requirements set out in domestic law, but also the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001) and should have the power to order the termination of the deprivation of liberty if it proves unlawful (see Musial v. Poland [GC], no. 24557/94, § 43, 25 March 1999, ECHR 1999-II, and Vodenicarov v. Slovakia, no. 24530/94, § 33, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  The Court recalls that under Article 5 § 4 an arrested or detained person is entitled to bring proceedings for the review by a court of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness" of his or her deprivation of liberty (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 100, 31 July 2000, ECHR 2000).

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Furthermore, as already held by the Court (see for example, Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003), constitutional redress proceedings were cumbersome and could not be considered expeditious.

  Lastly, as to constitutional proceedings, the applicant cited Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003), reiterating that the listing of such an application could take up to a month.

  The review, being intended to establish whether the deprivation of the individual's liberty is justified, must be sufficiently wide to encompass the various circumstances militating for or against detention (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 42, 9 January 2003).

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle par ailleurs que dès lors que la liberté d'un individu est en jeu elle applique des critères très stricts pour déterminer si, comme il en a l'obligation, l'Etat a statué à bref délai sur la régularité de la détention (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Kadem c. Malte, no 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 janvier 2003, dans lequel la Cour a jugé excessif un délai de dix-sept jours mis pour statuer sur la régularité de la détention du requérant, et l'arrêt Mamedova c. Russie, no 7064/05, § 96, 1er juin 2006, dans lequel des délais d'examen d'appels - entre autres de vingt-six jours - ont été jugés contraires à l'exigence de « célérité'de l'article 5 § 4).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  The remedies must be made available during a person's detention with a view to that person obtaining a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of his or her detention capable of leading, where appropriate, to his or her release (see Kadem v Malta, no. 55263/00, § 41, 9 January 2003 and Raza v. Bulgaria, no. 31465/08, § 76, 11 February 2010).

 
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  There has thus been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see, for example, Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 43-45, 9 January 2003, where the Court found a period of seventeen days for examining an appeal against detention to be too long, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 82-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where two such periods of twenty-three days were considered excessive).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

  DIMO DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Elle a par exemple considéré que des délais de 17 ou 23 jours pour un degré de juridiction n'étaient pas compatibles avec l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention (voir, respectivement, Kadem c. Malte, no 55263/00, § 44, 9 janvier 2003, et Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, §§ 85-88, CEDH 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 59-60; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  La Cour note en outre qu'une voie de recours doit exister avec un degré suffisant de certitude, non seulement en théorie mais aussi en pratique, sans quoi lui manquent l'accessibilité et l'effectivité requises par l'article 5 § 4. Par ailleurs, il n'est nullement exigé d'utiliser des recours qui ne sont ni adéquats ni effectifs (arrêts Sakık et autres c. Turquie, 26 novembre 1997, Recueil 1997-VII, p. 2625, § 53 ; Kadem c. Malte, no 55263/00, § 41, 9 janvier 2003 ; et, mutatis mutandis, Van Droogenbroeck c. Belgique, 24 juin 1982, série A no 50, p. 30, § 54, De Jong, Baljet et Van den Brink c. Pays-Bas, 22 mai 1984, série A no 77, p. 19, § 39, et YaÄŸcı et Sargın c. Turquie, 8 juin 1995, série A no 319-A, p. 17, § 42).
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)

  However, despite these arguments, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4. In Samy v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 36499/97, 4 December 2001), concerning the detention of aliens for the purposes of expulsion, the Court found that a period of twenty-five days was compatible with Article 5 § 4. By contrast, in Rehbock v. Slovenia (no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII) the Court found that the application for release had been examined twenty-three days after it had been lodged with the first-instance court, and that that was not a "speedy" examination as required by Article 5 § 4. A delay of seventeen days has also been declared incompatible with this provision (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 43, 9 January 2003).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06

  STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, cited above, §§ 59-60; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicants' remand in custody.
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 36475/10

  AGIT DEMIR c. TURQUIE

  L'article 5 § 4 de la Convention vise des voies de recours suffisamment certaines, faute de quoi les conditions d'accessibilité et d'effectivité ne seront pas satisfaites (Kadem c. Malte, no 55263/00, § 41, 9 janvier 2003).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 29049/12

  STERGIOPOULOS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  OSVÁTHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 45426/06

  GAL v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 57215/09

  BURYKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 36801/03

  MONDESHKI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 44009/02

  EVGENI IVANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 36275/02

  STOYAN DIMITROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 15349/06

  RIZZOTTO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 16508/04

  NARANJO HURTADO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 4528/02

  SEVK v. TURKEY