Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56081) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
WLOCH v. POLAND (No. 2)
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08
- EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 33475/08
- EGMR - 33475/08 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95
WLOCH v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08
However, the Court found a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in respect of lack of procedural guarantees in examining the applicant's appeal against the detention order and speediness of review of the lawfulness of his continued detention (see Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, §§ 130-136, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96
PANTEA c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08
The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X; Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, judgment of 3 June 2003, § 262; and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005). - EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03
CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08
In particular, it has considered that that remedy is capable both of preventing a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzynski v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42, ECHR 2005-V). - EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02
FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 33475/08
The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X; Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, judgment of 3 June 2003, § 262; and Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 83, 25 October 2005).