Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 15, Art. 15 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Non-violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-1 - Privation de liberté Arrestation ou détention régulière) Non-violation de l'article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté (Article 5-2 - Information sur les ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASSAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 15, Art. 15 Abs. 1, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest) No ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HASSAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);No ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Menschenrechtskonvention auch für Kriegsgefangene gültig

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Hassan v. the United Kingdom

  [11.12.2013]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  As provided by [Article 1 of the Convention] the engagement undertaken by a Contracting State is confined to "securing" ("reconnaître" in the French text) the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own "jurisdiction" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others [GC] (dec.), no. 52207/99, § 66, ECHR 2001- XII).

  As the Court noted in Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, § 62, ECHR 2001-XII, although there have been a number of military missions involving Contracting States acting extra-territorially since their ratification of the Convention, no State has ever made a derogation pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention in respect of these activities.

  The extra-jurisdictional reach of the Convention under Article 1 must necessarily go hand in hand with the scope of Article 15 (see Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others [GC], no. 52207/99, § 62, 12 December 2001).

• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 61498/08

  AL-SAADOON AND MUFDHI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  In Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61498/08, §§ 86-89, 30 June 2009, the Court held that two Iraqi nationals detained in British-controlled military prisons in Iraq fell within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, since the United Kingdom exercised total and exclusive control over the prisons and the individuals detained in them.

  However, in respect of the criterion set out in Article 31 § 3(b) of the Vienna Convention (see paragraph 34 above), the Court has previously stated that a consistent practice on the part of the High Contracting Parties, subsequent to their ratification of the Convention, could be taken as establishing their agreement not only as regards interpretation but even to modify the text of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 102-103, Series A no. 161 and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 120, ECHR 2010).

  In Al-Skeini v. the United Kingdom [GC], 55721/07, § 137, 7 July 2011, the Court confirmed, in clear and unequivocal terms, its prior rulings in the cases of Öcalan v. Turkey [GC] (no. 46221/99, 12 May 2005), Issa and Others v. Turkey (no. 31821/96, 16 November 2004), Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 61498/08, 30 June 2009), and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC] (no. 3394/03, 23 March 2010), to the effect that Member States" obligations under the Convention remain in place "whenever" the State, through its agents, "exercises control and authority over an individual" on the territory of another State.

• EKMR, 26.05.1975 - 6780/74

  CYPRUS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  6780/74 and 6950/75, Report of the Commission of 10 July 1976, volume 1, the Commission did not consider it necessary to address the question of breach of Article 5 where persons were detained under the Third Geneva Convention in the context of the taking of prisoners of war.

  6780/74 and 6950/75, Report of the Commission of 10 July 1976, volume 1, that a question arose similar to that in the present case, namely whether it was compatible with the obligations under Article 5 of the Convention to detain a person under the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions in the absence of a valid derogation under Article 15 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  As provided by [Article 1 of the Convention] the engagement undertaken by a Contracting State is confined to "securing" ("reconnaître" in the French text) the listed rights and freedoms to persons within its own "jurisdiction" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others [GC] (dec.), no. 52207/99, § 66, ECHR 2001- XII).

  However, in respect of the criterion set out in Article 31 § 3(b) of the Vienna Convention (see paragraph 34 above), the Court has previously stated that a consistent practice on the part of the High Contracting Parties, subsequent to their ratification of the Convention, could be taken as establishing their agreement not only as regards interpretation but even to modify the text of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 102-103, Series A no. 161 and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 120, ECHR 2010).

• EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 15305/06

  QUARK FISHING LTD. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  The existence of this mechanism, which was included in the Convention for historical reasons, cannot be interpreted in present conditions as limiting the scope of the term "jurisdiction" in Article 1. The situations covered by the "effective control" principle are clearly separate and distinct from circumstances where a Contracting State has not, through a declaration under Article 56, extended the Convention or any of its Protocols to an overseas territory for whose international relations it is responsible (see Loizidou (preliminary objections), cited above, §§ 86-89 and Quark Fishing Ltd v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15305/06, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  It has long been established that the list of grounds of permissible detention in Article 5 § 1 does not include internment or preventive detention where there is no intention to bring criminal charges within a reasonable time (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 13 and 14, Series A no. 3; Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 196, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 102, Series A no. 39; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2000-IX; and Al-Jedda, cited above, § 100).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  It has long been established that the list of grounds of permissible detention in Article 5 § 1 does not include internment or preventive detention where there is no intention to bring criminal charges within a reasonable time (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 13 and 14, Series A no. 3; Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 196, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 102, Series A no. 39; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2000-IX; and Al-Jedda, cited above, § 100).
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  It has long been established that the list of grounds of permissible detention in Article 5 § 1 does not include internment or preventive detention where there is no intention to bring criminal charges within a reasonable time (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, §§ 13 and 14, Series A no. 3; Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 196, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 102, Series A no. 39; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 47-52, ECHR 2000-IX; and Al-Jedda, cited above, § 100).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  Whilst it might not be practicable, in the course of an international armed conflict, for the legality of detention to be determined by an independent "court" in the sense generally required by Article 5 § 4 (see, in the latter context, Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005-XII), nonetheless, if the Contracting State is to comply with its obligations under Article 5 § 4 in this context, the "competent body" should provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality and fair procedure to protect against arbitrariness.
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  The starting point for the Court's examination must be its constant practice of interpreting the Convention in the light of the rules set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, § 29, and many subsequent cases).
• EKMR, 14.10.1992 - 17392/90

  M. c. DANEMARK
• EKMR, 15.12.1977 - 7547/76

  X c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99

  GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EKMR, 25.09.1965 - 1611/62

  X against THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
• EKMR, 14.07.1977 - 7289/75

  X et Y c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 19.03.2019 - 4 A 1361/15

  Deutschland muss amerikanische Drohneneinsätze prüfen

  vgl. IGH, Gutachten vom 8.7.1996: "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", ICJ Reports 1996, 226 (240 Nr. 25); Gutachten vom 9.7.2004: "Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", ICJ Reports 2004, 136 (177 f. Nr. 144 ff.); EGMR, Urteil vom 16.9.2014 - 2970/09 (Hassan ./. Vereinigtes Königreich) -, NJOZ 2016, 351 (…354 Rn. 77;… 356 Rn. 104); Supreme Court of Israel, Entscheidung vom 11.12.2005: The Public Committee against Torture in Israel et al.
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

  Account must also be taken of any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties (see Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 5809/08, § 134, 21 June 2016); the Convention cannot be interpreted in a vacuum and should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part (see, for instance, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI; Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 150, ECHR 2005-VI; Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 77 and 102, ECHR 2014; and Article 31 § 3 (c) of the Vienna Convention quoted above in paragraph 35).
• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …

  A similar statement to this effect can also be found in Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 29750/09, § 97, ECHR 2014).

 
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 59433/18

  EGMR zu den Rechten von Beamten: Lehrer dürften nicht streiken

  Toutefois, il ressort de la jurisprudence constante de la Cour que la Convention ne peut s'interpréter dans le vide mais doit autant que faire se peut s'interpréter de manière à se concilier avec les autres règles du droit international, dont elle fait partie intégrante (voir, par exemple, Demir et Baykara c. Turquie [GC], no 34503/97, §§ 76 et suivants, 12 novembre 2008 ; voir aussi Al-Adsani c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 35763/97, § 55, 21 novembre 2001, et Hassan c. Royaume-Uni, [GC], no 29750/09, § 77, 16 septembre 2014).
• EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18

  Keine Zuständigkeit für aus dem Ausland beantragtes humanitäres Visum, um nach …

  Equally, extraterritorial jurisdiction has been recognised as a result of situations in which the officials of a State operating outside its territory, through control over buildings, aircraft or ships in which individuals were held, exercised power and physical control over those persons (see Issa and Others v. Turkey, no. 31821/96, §§ 72-82, 16 November 2004; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61498/08, §§ 86-89, 30 June 2009; Medvedyev and Others, cited above, §§ 62-67; Hirsi Jamaa, cited above, §§ 76-82; and Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 75-80, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 8675/15

  Spaniens Abschiebungen verstoßen gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  Elle rappelle toutefois que, dès l'instant où un État, par le biais de ses agents opérant hors de son territoire, exerce son contrôle et son autorité sur un individu, et par voie de conséquence sa juridiction, il pèse sur lui en vertu de l'article 1 une obligation de reconnaître à celui-ci les droits et libertés définis au titre I de la Convention qui concernent son cas (Al-Skeini et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 55721/07, § 137, CEDH 2011, et Hassan c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29750/09, § 74, CEDH 2014).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)

  The applicant Government submitted that in Hassan v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29750/09, ECHR 2014) the Court had made it clear that, in accordance with international law, the Convention continued to apply during international and non-international armed conflict.

  According to the law of treaties, however, "a consistent practice on the part of the High Contracting Parties, subsequent to their ratification of the Convention, [can] be taken as establishing their agreement not only as regards interpretation but even to modify the text of the Convention" (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 101, ECHR 2014).

  In Hassan v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29750/09, § 76, ECHR 2014) the Court found that the United Kingdom, during the active phase of the conflict, did have jurisdiction based on the standard of "physical power and control" over the victim, and was therefore responsible for violations of the applicant's rights.

  It is to be recalled that in the landmark case of Hassan v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29750/09, ECHR 2014), the absence of a formal derogation by the United Kingdom under Article 15 of the Convention did not in any manner hinder the establishment of the respondent State's extraterritorial jurisdiction over the events which had occurred in south-east Iraq (ibid., §§ 74-80, 101 and 107-10).

  [106] Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, ECHR 2014.

• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 20261/12

  Ungarn verstößt gegen Menschenrechtskonvention

  The Court has since reiterated on numerous occasions the importance of the principle of the rule of law in the context of Article 6 of the Convention (see, purely by way of indication, Siegle v. Romania, no. 23456/04, § 32, 16 April 2013; Varniene v. Lithuania, no. 42916/04, § 37, 12 November 2013; Solomun v. Croatia, no. 679/11, § 46, 2 April 2015; Ustimenko v. Ukraine, no. 32053/13, § 46, 29 October 2015; and Amirkhanyan v. Armenia, no. 22343/08, § 33, 3 December 2015), and also of the need to take account of the relevant rules of international law in interpreting and applying the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 100, 102, ECHR 2014).

  Although the Court affirms in the context of Article 2 and 3 cases that "the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio" (see, for example, the case of Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 49, ECHR 2014), exceptions from this principle require a strong justification.

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND

  The Court has stated on many occasions that the Convention must be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 102, ECHR 2014, with reference to Article 31 § 3 (c) VCLT).
• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 60561/14

  S.M. c. CROATIE

  This corresponds in essence to the Court's approach in other cases concerning, in particular, Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014; Bouyid, cited above, § 124; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 68, 25 June 2009).

  Consequently, the prima facie evidence to which the Court refers in this judgment (see paragraphs 324, 325, 331 and 332) corresponds to the notion of "sufficiently clear indications" to which the Court commonly refers under Article 3 in this regard (see, for example, Hassan v. the United Kingdom ï�?GCï��, no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014; M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 75450/12, § 76, 19 February 2015; Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, cited above, § 97; and Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 26562/07

  Geiseldrama von Beslan - Russland verurteilt
• EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 20958/14

  Krimkrise
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 35289/11

  REGNER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 40503/17

  M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 36925/07

  GÜZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 18269/18

  KRACHUNOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 12778/17

  Türkei verurteilt: Haft für Verfassungsrichter war illegal
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 39611/18

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)
• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 32325/13

  MAFALANI v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  MATKAVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 39061/11

  THIMOTHAWES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 33351/20

  MILANKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 64969/10

  MEHMET FIDAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 35746/11

  SARIBEKYAN AND BALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 70472/12

  TARAK ET DEPE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 24213/08

  BASENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 23707/15

  MUZAMBA OYAW c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 34804/14

  GORAN KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA