Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DARVAS v. HUNGARY

  (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 19547/07
• EGMR - 19547/07

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

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  Having regard to its findings below (see paragraphs 26 to 29), the Court considers it unnecessary, in the circumstances of the present case, to address the issues potentially raised by the rather stereotypical reasoning of the orders confirming the applicant's detention in this period (cf. Mansur v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 55, Series A no. 319-B) together with the alleged lack of consideration of his individual circumstances (cf. Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) and of an in-depth analysis of the evidence against him (cf. Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 68, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  The Court notes in particular that the courts paid little attention to the applicant's personal circumstances rendering his fleeing implausible, such as his family background (cf. Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 10, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99

  SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  The Court considers that, in that rather advanced phase of the proceedings, the mere fact that the authorities adopted formally valid decisions prolonging the applicant's detention with reference to the danger of absconding did not as such suffice to secure protection from arbitrariness, notably because the underlying reasons were not supported by adequate factual elements (see, mutatis mutandis, Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 71, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  The Court observes that a person may be deprived of his liberty only for the purposes specified in Article 5 § 1. A person may be detained within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of his having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so (cf. Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  Instead, they insisted on the danger of the applicant's absconding, reiterating the sole consideration related to the potential imposition of a very severe sanction (cf. Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207), without however indicating in any manner how the results of the investigation had substantiated this eventuality (cf. Stepuleac, loc. cit.).
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 8207/06

  STEPULEAC v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  Having regard to its findings below (see paragraphs 26 to 29), the Court considers it unnecessary, in the circumstances of the present case, to address the issues potentially raised by the rather stereotypical reasoning of the orders confirming the applicant's detention in this period (cf. Mansur v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 55, Series A no. 319-B) together with the alleged lack of consideration of his individual circumstances (cf. Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV) and of an in-depth analysis of the evidence against him (cf. Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 68, 6 November 2007).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 34503/03

  GAJCSI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 19547/07

  The Court would further reiterate that formally valid detention orders do not necessarily fulfil the requirements of Article 5 § 1 if not underpinned by sufficient reasons (see, mutatis mutandis, Gajcsi v. Hungary, no. 34503/03, §§ 18-21, 3 October 2006).

• VG Oldenburg, 18.06.2014 - 12 B 1238/14

  Systemische Mängel; Überstellung; Ungarn

  Insbesondere die ungarische Praxis der Inhaftierung wurde in Urteilen des EGMR (vom 11. Januar 2011, Darvas ./. Ungarn, Nr. 19547/07 und vom 20. September 2011 Lopko und Toure ./. Ungarn, Nr. 10816/10) ausdrücklich für konventionswidrig erklärt.