Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LAZARIU v. ROMANIA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-b - Lawful order of a court) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Lazariu v. Romania
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 31973/03
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
- EGMR, 04.11.2015 - 31973/03
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (23)
- EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 40490/98
JAHNKE and LENOBLE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
They also argued that it was not necessary for the appellate courts to deal with every point raised by the applicant, since they were not all decisive in the case; they referred to the case of Jahnke and Lenoble v. France ((dec.), no. 40490/98, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 28.01.2003 - 34763/02
BURG et AUTRES contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
Although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II). - EGMR, 12.02.1985 - 9317/81
RUBINAT v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
Relying on the case of Colozza v. Italy (12 February 1985, Series A no. 89), the Government concluded that it had not been unreasonable for the appellate courts to continue the proceedings without the applicant since she had deliberately failed to appear before them.
- EGMR, 08.09.2005 - 18624/03
IVANCIUC c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
The Court takes the view that the applicant, who became a lawyer during the proceedings, must have been aware of the consequences of her repeated absences from the appellate courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Ivanciuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 18624/03, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
In particular, it reiterates that it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-75, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 50774/99
SCIACCA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
It must verify whether there has been an interference with that right in the present case and, if so, whether that interference satisfied the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 8 (see Sciacca v. Italy, no. 50774/99, § 28, ECHR 2005-I). - EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90
VAN DE HURK v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
Although Article 6 § 1 obliges courts to give reasons for their decisions, it cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, 19 April 1994, § 59, Series A no. 288, and Burg v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, ECHR 2003-II). - EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88
POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
The law must accordingly be able to discourage unjustified absences (see Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 35, Series A no. 277-A). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
BOZANO v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
One general principle established in the Court's case-law is that detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 60, Series A no. 111, and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 41, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 46549/06
APINIS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00
ENHORN c. SUEDE
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01
REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95
WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE
- EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 46468/99
MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY
- EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80
BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99
Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …
- EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94
PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28871/95
CONSTANTINESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97
O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 61164/00
DURINGER et AUTRES et GRUNGE contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12
IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
Nor did those four applicants attempt, as an alternative remedy, to sue the Ministry of the Interior, under the general rules of tort law contained in the Civil Code, for the wrong done to them by the allegedly abusive police actions, which consisted in forcing them into police patrol cars and evacuating them from the scene (compare with, Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, §§ 95 and 96, 27 May 2010; and also, for instance, with Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 88, 13 November 2014).