Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MORSINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MORSINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 48865/99
• EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99
• EGMR, 17.12.2014 - 48865/99

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  This applies in particular to the list of permissible exceptions in paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention "...having regard to the fact that they constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom" (see Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1184, § 122; and see also Ciulla v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p.18, § 41; and Labita v. Italy, [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  Although it is true that the Court has held in the past that there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention, and that, in principle, the "detention" of a person as a mental health patient will only be "lawful" for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV, with further references), the Court, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot accept the applicant's argument that the failure to admit him to a custodial clinic on 5 February 1998 rendered his detention after that date automatically unlawful under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  Referring to the Court's findings in the case of Bizzotto v. Greece, in which it had held that arrangements for implementing sentences could not, in principle, have any bearing on the "lawfulness" of a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1739, § 34), the case of Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom in which the Court had held that Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention was not in principle concerned with suitable treatment or conditions (judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 21, § 44), and the case of Wynne v. the United Kingdom (no. 67385/01, decision of 22 May 2003) in which the Court had held that the applicant's continued detention beyond the expiry of his "tariff" on grounds of risk and dangerousness remained justified under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as there was a clear causal connection between the original offences and his continued detention, the Government considered that, even during the applicant's pre-placement detention, the required connection had existed between the legal basis for his detention and the place and circumstances of that detention.
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  CIULLA v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  This applies in particular to the list of permissible exceptions in paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention "...having regard to the fact that they constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom" (see Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1184, § 122; and see also Ciulla v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p.18, § 41; and Labita v. Italy, [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  Reiterating that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 21, § 49), the Court accepts, in the light of the Appeals Board's decision of 11 November 1999, that the applicant's pre-placement detention during the period under consideration was lawful under domestic law.

• BVerfG, 11.07.2013 - 2 BvR 2302/11

  Therapieunterbringungsgesetz entspricht bei verfassungskonformer Auslegung dem …

  Auch das zweite Verfahren betraf die Unterbringung eines Straftäters, der für (nur) eingeschränkt strafrechtlich verantwortlich befunden und zu einer Freiheitsstrafe in Kombination mit psychiatrischer Unterbringung verurteilt worden war (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 11. Mai 2004 - Beschwerde-Nr. 48865/99 - Morsink ./. Niederlande, Rn. 9, 62).
• OLG Stuttgart, 01.06.2010 - 1 Ws 57/10

  Sicherungsverwahrung: Sofortige Entlassung in sog. Zehnjahresfällen wegen …

  Jedoch verlangt der EGMR (…Urt. v. 20.02.2003 - 50272/99 - Hutchinson Reid ./. Vereinigtes Königreich Ziff. 47 f.) in solchen Fällen grundsätzlich die Unterbringung in einem Krankenhaus oder einer entsprechenden anderen geeigneten Einrichtung und lässt die Unterbringung in einem Gefängnis nur übergangsweise - für wenige Monate - zu (EGMR, Urt. v. 11.05.2004 - 48865/99 - Morsink ./. Niederlande Ziff. 61 ff.;… s. weiterhin Urt. v. 11.05.2004 - Brand ./. Niederlande - 49902/99 Ziff. 66).
• OLG Saarbrücken, 14.05.2012 - 5 W 44/12

  Verfahren nach dem Gesetz zur Therapierung und Unterbringung psychisch gestörter …

  Eine psychische Störung (das Therapieunterbringungsgesetz gebraucht den Begriff der "Krankheit" nicht) könne - vor dem Hintergrund der Rechtsprechung des EGMR (die Gesetzesbegründung zitiert die Entscheidungen vom 20.2.2003 in Sachen Hutchinson Reid ./. UK, Nr. 50272/99), und vom 11.5.2004 in Sachen Morsink ./. NL, Nr. 48865/99) - auch dann angenommen werden, wenn sie nicht im klinischen Sinne behandelbar sei, und sie scheitere auch nicht an einer vorhandenen strafrechtlichen Verantwortlichkeit eines Straftäters.

 
• OLG Hamm, 09.06.2011 - 4 Ws 207/10

  Erledigterklärung der Sicherungsverwahrung mangels Feststellbarkeit einer …

  2004 sei der EGMR zu der Feststellung gelangt, daß eine strafrechtliche Verantwortlichkeit eines Straftäters eine (auch) auf Art. 5 Abs. 1 S: 2 e) EGMR gestützte Unterbringung nicht ausschließe (##### ./. ##, Urteil des EGMR vom 11. Mai 2004, Nr. 48865/99).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 8595/06

  DE DONDER ET DE CLIPPEL c. BELGIQUE

  Renvoyant à l'arrêt Morsink c. Pays-Bas (no 48865/99, 11 mai 2004, § 66-67), il soutient que le fait qu'il n'a pas immédiatement été placé dans la section psychiatrique ou dans un « établissement approprié'ne suffit pas à caractériser une violation de l'article 5. Sur ce dernier point, il rappelle que la commission de défense sociale devait désigner un établissement où interner Tom De Clippel en application des articles 14 et 16 de la loi de défense sociale mais que son décès, intervenu rapidement après sa réincarcération, ne l'a pas permis.
• LG Düsseldorf, 17.08.2010 - 52 StVK 40/10

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Anordnung einer Fortdauer des Maßregelvollzugs für einen …

  Soweit der EGMR bei Freiheitsentziehung im Sinne des Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 2 e EMRK die Unterbringung in einem Krankenhaus oder einer entsprechenden anderen geeigneten Einrichtung verlangt und eine Unterbringung in einem Gefängnis nur übergangsweise erlaubt (vgl. Urteil vom 20. Februar 2003 - 50272/99 - Hutchinson Reid ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Ziff. 47 f.; Urteil vom 11. Mai 2004 - 48865/99 - Morsink ./. Niederlande, Ziff. 61 ff.; Urteil vom 11. Mai 2004 - 49902/99 - Brand ./. Niederlande, Ziff. 66), ist diesem Erfordernis durch die Überweisung des Betroffenen in den Vollzug der Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus Rechnung getragen.
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 38884/06

  GAVRIELIDES AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Furthermore, it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret national law (see, inter alia, Epple v. Germany, no. 77909/01, § 38, 24 March 2005; Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, § 63, 11 May 2004).