Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
L.M. v. SLOVENIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
L.M. v. Slovenia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
L.M. v. SLOVENIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
- EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 32863/05
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009).In the absence of such a time-limit, the applicant was confined without a valid substantive legal basis or clear rules governing the maximum duration of this situation, which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 62, ECHR 2000-IX).
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95
BARANOWSKI v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009).In the absence of such a time-limit, the applicant was confined without a valid substantive legal basis or clear rules governing the maximum duration of this situation, which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 62, ECHR 2000-IX).
- EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
Lastly, the Court has outlined three minimum conditions for the lawful detention of an individual on the basis of unsoundness of mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention: he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; and, more recently, Stanev, cited above, § 145).
- EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
In the context of the present case, this interval of four days must be regarded as falling outside the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness for the purposes of Article 5 § 2 (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 416, ECHR 2005-III, and the references cited therein). - EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04
X v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
The Court considers that, having regard to the circumstances of the present case, her complaint falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 230, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), the relevant parts of which read as follows:. - EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
In this regard, the Court has also found violations of Article 5 § 4 in cases where a detained person was made to wait a certain amount of time before being able to challenge the lawfulness of his or her deprivation of liberty (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 58, Series A no. 77, where the applicants spent seven, eleven and six days in custody respectively, before being referred for trial; see also Ä°ÄŸdeli v. Turkey, no. 29296/95, § 35, 20 June 2002, where the applicant was unable to challenge his seven-day detention in police custody). - EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
The general principles concerning the circumstances constituting a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and therefore attracting the protection of this provision are set out in Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 115-120, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00
Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
Given that the notion of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 also comprises an additional subjective element, namely that a person has not validly consented to the confinement in question (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 74, ECHR 2005-V), it remains to be ascertained whether the applicant did in fact consent - at least by implication - to her stay in the open ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital. - EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00
SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
The general principles on the exhaustion of domestic remedies are set out in Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2006-II). - EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03
RAUDEVS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12
ADEN AHMED v. MALTA