Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2013,36394
EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,36394)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.12.2013 - 24086/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,36394)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Dezember 2013 - 24086/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,36394)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,36394) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RAUDEVS v. LATVIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) Violation of Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

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 ... (6)

  • EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 45520/04

    LARIONOVS AND TESS v. LATVIA

    The first case concerned the text of section 271 (defamation of public officials) of the Criminal Law: the Constitutional Court found that provision to be incompatible with Article 100 of the Constitution (freedom of expression) and declared the provision null and void (see, for more details, Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, §§ 19-22, 17 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

    L.M. v. SLOVENIA

    In relation to their argument that the applicant had failed to bring a civil action for damages against the State with regard to her involuntary confinement in the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital and the closed ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital, the Court reiterates that where lawfulness of deprivation of liberty is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used, because the right not to be deprived of one's liberty "save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, inter alia, Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 151, 5 February 2009; Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 49, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 62, 17 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 45797/09

    ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE (no. 2)

    The Court has held in its case-law that where the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used, because the right not to be deprived of one's liberty "save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, inter alia, Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 151, 5 February 2009; Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 49, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 62, 17 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

    K.C. v. POLAND

    Indeed, no provision was made for such an assessment under the relevant legislation (see Stanev, cited above, § 158, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 169, ECHR 2012, and paragraph 40 above and compare Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 86, 17 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 66095/09

    O.G. v. LATVIA

    In this regard, the Court has previously held that a patient compulsorily detained for psychiatric treatment must have the right to seek judicial review of his or her own motion (see Gorshkov v. Ukraine, no. 67531/01, § 44, 8 November 2005, Rakevich v. Russia, no. 58973/00, §§ 43-44, 28 October 2003 and Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 82, 17 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 6752/13

    O.G. v. LATVIA

    In this connection, the Convention essentially refers back to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof (see, among other authorities, Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 68, 17 December 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht