Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,68773
EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,68773)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.10.2008 - 16159/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,68773)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Oktober 2008 - 16159/03 (https://dejure.org/2008,68773)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,68773) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    It is incumbent on the respondent Government to provide a detailed account of the relevant facts (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29221/95

    STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    The Court reiterates that the admissibility decision delimits the scope of the case before it (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 59, ECHR 2001-IX).
  • EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

    VACHEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 of Article 5 where that deprivation has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 78, 8 July 2004).
  • EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

    QUINN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    Thus, the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 1 where the time taken to execute a domestic decision ordering the release of a detainee was 11 hours (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 18, § 42), 12 hours (see Labita, cited above, §§ 172-74), one day (see Bojinov v. Bulgaria, no. 47799/99, §§ 38-40, 28 October 2004) and seven days (see Nikolov v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 83-85).
  • EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

    BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    The Court reiterates that the requirement of "lawfulness" under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention presupposes not only conformity with the material and procedural rules of domestic law but also conformity with the purpose of the restrictions permissible under Article 5 § 1 or Article 5 generally, in particular to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18 and 19-20, §§ 39 and 45, and Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 20, § 47).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

    CIULLA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    The effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty (see Ciulla v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, pp. 18-19, § 44; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2626, § 60; and N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 52, ECHR 2002-X).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 16159/03
    The Court reiterates that the requirement of "lawfulness" under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention presupposes not only conformity with the material and procedural rules of domestic law but also conformity with the purpose of the restrictions permissible under Article 5 § 1 or Article 5 generally, in particular to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18 and 19-20, §§ 39 and 45, and Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 20, § 47).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht