Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ATUDOREI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Atudorei v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, CEDH 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, CEDH 2001-III).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  As regards the deprivation of liberty of mentally disordered persons, an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Shtukaturov, cited above, § 114; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no 31365/956, § 45, 5 October 2000).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  Such an interference will breach Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one of the legitimate aims set out in the second paragraph of that Article, and can be considered "necessary in a democratic society" in pursuit of that aim (see Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 151, 29 April 2003, and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 84, Series A no. 61).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, CEDH 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, CEDH 2001-III).
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 8278/78

  X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  Thus, compulsory medical treatment, even if it is of minor importance, constitutes an interference with that right (see X v. Austria, no. 8278/78, Commission decision of 13 December 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 18, and Acmanne and Others v. Belgium, no. 10435/83, Commission decision of 10 December 1984, DR 40).
• EKMR, 10.12.1984 - 10435/83

  ACMANNE and others v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  Thus, compulsory medical treatment, even if it is of minor importance, constitutes an interference with that right (see X v. Austria, no. 8278/78, Commission decision of 13 December 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 18, and Acmanne and Others v. Belgium, no. 10435/83, Commission decision of 10 December 1984, DR 40).
• EGMR, 14.04.2011 - 30060/04

  Erneut Sicherungsverwahrung verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  In addition, sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty; such a measure will not be lawful unless it is based on one of those grounds (ibid., § 49; see also, in particular, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008, and Jendrowiak v. Germany, no. 30060/04, § 31, 14 April 2011).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  Accordingly, in view of the specific situation in the present case the Court considers that the applicant was under continuous supervision and control and was not free to leave (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 73, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  Account must be taken of a whole range of factors arising in a particular case, such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39, and Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 41, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  In this regard, the Court refers to its case-law to the effect that a person may be considered to have been "detained" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 even during a period when he or she was allowed to make certain journeys or was in an open ward with regular unescorted access to unsecured hospital grounds and the possibility of unescorted leave outside the hospital (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 128, 17 January 2012, and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 92, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  NIELSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  H.M. v. SWITZERLAND

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 60103/11

  STEPANIAN c. ROUMANIE

  En outre, la responsabilité de l'État est engagée pour des traitements contraires à l'article 3 subis dans un hôpital public (mutatis mutandis Centre de ressources juridiques au nom de Valentin Câmpeanu, précité, § 134 ; et Atudorei c. Roumanie, no 50131/08, § 139, 16 septembre 2014).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 59152/08

  N. c. ROUMANIE

  Qui plus est, ni les autorités médicales ni le tribunal lui-même n'ont examiné si des mesures alternatives auraient pu être appliquées en l'espèce (voir, mutatis mutandis, Mihailovs c. Lettonie, no 35939/10, § 149 in fine, 22 janvier 2013, et Atudorei c. Roumanie, no 50131/08, § 153, 16 septembre 2014).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 16270/12

  COMORASU c. ROUMANIE

  La loi no 487/2002 a été amplement modifiée par la loi no 129/2012 puis republiée au Journal Officiel no 487 du 17 juillet 2012 (voir B. c. Roumanie (no 2), no 1285/03, §§ 51-52, 19 février 2013 et Atudorei c. Roumanie, no 50131/08, §§ 82-84, 16 septembre 2014).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 35402/14

  R.D. ET I.M.D. c. ROUMANIE

  Appréciation de la Cour 72. La Cour rappelle que les principes applicables en la matière ont été énoncés dans les arrêts Glass c. Royaume-Uni (no 61827/00, § 70, CEDH 2004-II), X c. Finlande (no 34806/04, §§ 212-213, CEDH 2012 (extraits)) et Atudorei c. Roumanie (no 50131/08, §§ 160-163, 16 septembre 2014).