Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+5 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  In order to avoid arbitrariness, there must inter alia be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 69, where the Court referred as examples to Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129; Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, § 46; and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

  D. v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  Where the existence of an effective remedy has been established by the respondent Government, the threshold for a "special circumstances" dispensation from the obligation to exhaust it is high (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006; see also Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 352, ECHR 2001-IV; and Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 38, Series A no. 40).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 61319/09

  FOX v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  However, an applicant is not required to use a remedy which, "according to settled legal opinion existing at the relevant time", offers no reasonable prospects of providing redress for his complaint (see Fox v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61319/09, 20 March 2012).

 
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  Where the existence of an effective remedy has been established by the respondent Government, the threshold for a "special circumstances" dispensation from the obligation to exhaust it is high (see D. v. Ireland (dec.), no. 26499/02, §§ 89 and 91, 28 June 2006; see also Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 352, ECHR 2001-IV; and Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 38, Series A no. 40).
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  In order to avoid arbitrariness, there must inter alia be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 69, where the Court referred as examples to Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129; Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, § 46; and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  The Court recalls the requirements of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies summarised in its judgment in Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999 V):.