Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANATOLIY RUDENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Rudenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RUDENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08
• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 50264/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of an individual and as such its importance in a democratic society is paramount (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 30, ECHR 2006-X, and Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 102, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08

  In this latter respect the Court reiterates that, according to its established case-law, an individual cannot be considered to be of "unsound mind" and deprived of his liberty unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he must reliably be shown by objective medical expertise 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).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08

  That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the particular circumstances (see, for the application of these principles in the context of Article 5 § 1 (e), Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 143, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08

  The Court finds the opportunity of patients to benefit from a second, independent psychiatric opinion, a principle also included in the UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care (see paragraph 63 above), to be an important safeguard against possible arbitrariness in decision-making where the continuation of confinement in involuntary care is concerned (see X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 169, ECHR 2012, and M. v. Ukraine, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08

  It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08

  Having regard to the documents submitted, the Court considers those fees to have been "actually incurred" (see Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, no. 37083/03, § 106, ECHR 2009).