Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18165/91 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SILVA ROCHA v. PORTUGAL
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
No violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SILVA ROCHA c. PORTUGAL
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
Non-violation de l'Art. 5-4 (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 10.01.1995 - 18165/91
- EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18165/91
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18165/91
The Commission took the view that the Court's reasoning in the cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33) and X v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46) applied to Mr Silva Rocha's situation.I do not agree with the Commission that this case cannot be distinguished from the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands case (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33) and the case of X v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46), where the Court concluded that Article 5 para.
The case of Silva Rocha is different from that of X v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46).
- EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18165/91
The Commission took the view that the Court's reasoning in the cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33) and X v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46) applied to Mr Silva Rocha's situation.I do not agree with the Commission that this case cannot be distinguished from the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands case (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33) and the case of X v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46), where the Court concluded that Article 5 para.
- EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18165/91
The Commission accordingly concluded that such a lapse of time was "manifestly excessive" (see the Luberti v. Italy judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 16, para. 34, and the Herczegfalvy v. Austria judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, para. 77). - EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80
LUBERTI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18165/91
The Commission accordingly concluded that such a lapse of time was "manifestly excessive" (see the Luberti v. Italy judgment of 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, p. 16, para. 34, and the Herczegfalvy v. Austria judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, para. 77).