Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARKAVYY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 25978/07
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07
• EGMR - 25978/07

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

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  On 7 February 2006 the applicant's detention was ordered for forty days by the Ukrainian court under the European Convention on Extradition, although being a Ukrainian national he could not be extradited, as the domestic legislation excludes, in non-ambiguous terms, the extradition of Ukrainian nationals (see and compare with a case against Russia in which similar prohibition on extradition of nationals exists: Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 88-91, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)); moreover, Ukraine made a relevant reservation to the above Convention.
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  The Court has already been faced with the situation where administrative detention, formally falling under Article 5 § 1 (a), had been used to ensure the availability of a person for other purpose (see, mutatis mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 54-56, 19 February 2009).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or not to continue to be deprived, of their liberty (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 40, Series A no. 114), save in accordance with the conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 5. The list of exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV, and Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-III).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or not to continue to be deprived, of their liberty (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 40, Series A no. 114), save in accordance with the conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 5. The list of exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV, and Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or not to continue to be deprived, of their liberty (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 40, Series A no. 114), save in accordance with the conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 5. The list of exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV, and Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-III).