Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  What Article 35 § 1 in principle prevents is coming directly before the Court with a complaint which has not first been litigated within the national legal order; on the other hand, the person concerned is not obliged by Article 35 § 1 to repeat in his or her application to the Court the full case he or she argued before the relevant national authorities (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 29, Series A no. 35).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which 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 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 (the so-called Winterwerp criteria, see the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39; as more recent authorities, see, inter alia, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which 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 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 (the so-called Winterwerp criteria, see the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39; as more recent authorities, see, inter alia, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The deprivation of liberty must be shown to have been necessary in the circumstances (see, inter alia, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III; Varbanov, cited above, § 46; Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, § 51, 8 June 2004; Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 36, ECHR 2005-I; and Stanev, cited above, § 145).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which 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 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 (the so-called Winterwerp criteria, see the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39; as more recent authorities, see, inter alia, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The national authorities have a certain discretion regarding the merits of clinical diagnoses since it is in the first place for them to evaluate the evidence in a particular case: the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 40; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 42, Series A no. 46; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Frank v. Germany (dec.), no. 32705/06, ECHR 28 September 2010; and Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, § 42, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The Court reiterates its established case-law according to which 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 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 (the so-called Winterwerp criteria, see the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39; as more recent authorities, see, inter alia, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 45, ECHR 2000-X; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The national authorities have a certain discretion regarding the merits of clinical diagnoses since it is in the first place for them to evaluate the evidence in a particular case: the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 40; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 42, Series A no. 46; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Frank v. Germany (dec.), no. 32705/06, ECHR 28 September 2010; and Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, § 42, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 32705/06

  FRANK v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  The national authorities have a certain discretion regarding the merits of clinical diagnoses since it is in the first place for them to evaluate the evidence in a particular case: the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 40; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 42, Series A no. 46; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; Frank v. Germany (dec.), no. 32705/06, ECHR 28 September 2010; and Biziuk v. Poland (no. 2), no. 24580/06, § 42, 17 January 2012).