Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Abdi v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08
• EGMR, 10.09.2014 - 27770/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 77363/01

  PELLEGRITI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  Equally, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121 et seq., ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  Moreover, in cases concerning Article 5 § 3 of the Convention it has not made an award of damages unless it could be shown that the applicant would not have suffered if he or she had had the benefit of the guarantees of that Article (see, for example, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 76, ECHR 1999-II, and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 149, ECHR 2004-IX).

 
• EGMR, 08.06.2004 - 40905/98

  HILDA HAFSTEINSDOTTIR v. ICELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  The Court recalls that there are a number of previous cases where it has found such a violation of Article 5 and concluded that the finding of a violation should in itself constitute just satisfaction (see, for example, Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, § 60, 8 June 2004).
• EGMR, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

  D. v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006 and Fox v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 42).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

  MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  Equally, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121 et seq., ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

  MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 27770/08

  The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).