Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÖTHLIN v. SWEDEN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Article 5-1-b - Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Göthlin v. Sweden

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GÖTHLIN v. SWEDEN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 8307/11

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, with further references).

• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

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

  In order to be covered by Article 5 § 1 (b), an arrest and detention must also be aimed at or directly contribute to securing the fulfilment of that obligation and not be punitive in character (see Johansen v. Norway, no. 10600/83, Commission decision of 14 October 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 162; Vasileva, cited above, § 363; Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, § 46, ECHR 2010; Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, § 57, 9 November 2010; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, § 236, 22 February 2011; and Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 57, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 10940/17

  M.H. AND S.B. v. HUNGARY

  As soon as the relevant obligation has been fulfilled, the basis for detention under Article 5 § 1 (b) ceases to exist (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, § 36, 25 September 2003, and Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 57, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22

  A.D. v. MALTA

  As soon as the relevant obligation has been fulfilled, the basis for detention under Article 5 § 1 (b) ceases to exist (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, § 36, 25 September 2003; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 57, 16 October 2014).

 
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA

  Also, where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O"Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 29907/16

  NEGOVANOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  For example, where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 26944/13

  POPOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  For example, where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O"Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.10.2018 - 55080/13

  PROVENZANO v. ITALY

  The Court reiterates that where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her choice (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  BOLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Where, for example, more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O"Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.04.2020 - 75229/10

  DRAGAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Also, where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O"Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 40825/15

  ALEKSIC v. SERBIA

  For example, where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada, cited above, § 142; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  MAZUKNA v. LITHUANIA