Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
The court nonetheless went on to consider the lawfulness of his detention, not just in domestic law, but also under Article 5. It held that the 1986 Order was not unlawful as being arbitrary or unconstitutional and that the appellant did suffer from a mental disorder sufficiently serious to warrant detention, in accordance with the test set out in Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33.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 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 v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X).
- EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95
WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
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 circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05
SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
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 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 v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X).
- EGMR, 06.06.2000 - 28135/95
MAGEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
In the present case, such a difference does not amount to discriminatory treatment within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Magee v. the United Kingdom, no. 28135/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
In Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 143-147, ECHR 2012 the Court recently summarised the principles relating to the detention of persons of unsound mind, as follows:. - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
In principle, the "detention" of a person as a mental-health patient will be "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) only if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution authorised for that purpose (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 44, Series A no. 93, and Pankiewicz v. Poland, no. 34151/04, §§ 42-45, 12 February 2008). - EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 32357/09
It requires in addition, however, that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244).