Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.D. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (abuse of the right of petition) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  D. D. gegen Litauen

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  D.D. v. Lithuania

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 13469/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Thus, for example, they can make appropriate procedural arrangements in order to secure the good administration of justice, protection of the health of the person concerned, and so forth (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 68, ECHR 2008).

  However, this does not necessarily mean that the applicant was de facto unable to understand her situation (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 108, ECHR 2008).

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  It also reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 (see, among many authorities, Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 110, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Special procedural safeguards may prove called for in order to protect the interests of persons who, on account of their mental disabilities, are not fully capable of acting for themselves (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A; also see Stanev, cited above, § 171).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  This is so in cases where the original detention was initially authorised by a judicial authority (see X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 52, Series A no. 46), and it is all the more true in the circumstances of the present case, where the applicant's placement in the Kedainiai Home was initiated by a private individual, namely the applicant's guardian, and decided upon by the municipal and social care authorities without any involvement on the part of the courts.
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  H.M. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  With respect to the subjective element of her complaint, the applicant noted that her case was diametrically opposite to that of H.M. v. Switzerland (no. 39187/98, § 47, ECHR 2002-II), where the applicant had agreed to her admission to a nursing home.
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  In this regard, the Court notes its case-law to the effect that a person could be considered to have been "detained" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 even during a period when he or she was in an open ward with regular unescorted access to unsecured hospital grounds and the possibility of unescorted leave outside the hospital (see H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 92, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Accordingly, the specific situation in the present case is that the applicant is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 73, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  NIELSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Having regard to the fact that the Kedainiai Home had to take care of adults suffering from mental health problems, it followed that the limited restrictions on the applicant had corresponded to the nature of the facility and had been no more than normal requirements (Nielsen v. Denmark, 28 November 1988, § 72, Series A no. 144).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99

  McVICAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM