Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RANJBAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 37040/07

  In view of the above, the Court finds that the deprivation of liberty to which the applicants were subjected did not have a strictly-defined statutory basis circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 118, Reports 1996-V; and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 37040/07

  The Court points out that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention circumscribes the circumstances in which individuals may be lawfully deprived of their liberty, it being stressed that these circumstances must be given a narrow interpretation having regard to the fact that they constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom (see Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 37040/07

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and establishes the need to apply its rules, but it also requires that any measure depriving the individual of liberty must be compatible with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 44, Series A no. 93).

• EGMR, 26.07.2022 - 31872/19

  SAIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Having noted that in its decision of 10 December 2018 the Regional Court ordered the applicant's detention while simultaneously annulling the removal order and remitting the case for reconsideration by the District Court, the Court first needs to establish whether the requirements of "lawfulness" and the "absence of arbitrariness" were met before moving on to examine the issue of whether the applicant's deprivation of liberty was governed by the exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see Ranjbar and Others v. Turkey, no. 37040/07, § 39, 13 April 2010).