Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09, 57715/09, 57877/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,27404
EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09, 57715/09, 57877/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,27404)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.09.2012 - 25119/09, 57715/09, 57877/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,27404)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. September 2012 - 25119/09, 57715/09, 57877/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,27404)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27404) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    JAMES, WELLS AND LEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-a - Conviction) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court) ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    JAMES, WELLS AND LEE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    [DEU] Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-a - Conviction) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court) ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

    BOZANO v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    Thus, by way of example, the Court has found violations of Article 5 § 1 in cases where the authorities resorted to dishonesty or subterfuge in bringing an applicant into custody to effect his subsequent extradition or deportation (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, §§ 59-60; and Series A no. 111; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 40-42, ECHR 2002-I).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    As regards the possibility of compensation in the event of a finding of a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 or 4, the Court reiterates that in order to find a violation of Article 5 § 5, it has to establish that the finding of a violation of one of the other paragraphs of Article 5 could not give rise, either before or after the Court's judgment, to an enforceable claim for compensation before the domestic courts (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 184, ECHR 2012).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 24478/03

    Vereinbarkeit der Sicherungsverwahrung mit dem Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    For the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), the word "conviction" has to be understood as signifying both a finding of guilt after it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving deprivation of liberty (see M. v. Germany, cited above, § 87; and Grosskopf v. Germany, no. 24478/03, § 43, 21 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

    BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    Article 5 § 1 also requires that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 47, Series A no. 129; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 118, Reports 1996-V; Stafford, cited above, § 63; Saadi, cited above, § 67; Kafkaris, cited above; 116; A. and Others, cited above, § 164; and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 79, 29 March 2010).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    The Court reiterates at the outset that the object and purpose of Article 5 § 1 is to ensure that no-one is dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, p. 52, Series A no. 3; Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22; Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 66, 29 January 2008; and M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 89, ECHR 2009).
  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    In short, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 42, Series A no. 114; Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 64, ECHR 2002-IV; Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 117, 12 February 2008; and M. v. Germany, cited above, § 88).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    The Court reiterates at the outset that the object and purpose of Article 5 § 1 is to ensure that no-one is dispossessed of his liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, p. 52, Series A no. 3; Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22; Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 66, 29 January 2008; and M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 89, ECHR 2009).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    Thus, by way of example, the Court has found violations of Article 5 § 1 in cases where the authorities resorted to dishonesty or subterfuge in bringing an applicant into custody to effect his subsequent extradition or deportation (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, §§ 59-60; and Series A no. 111; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 40-42, ECHR 2002-I).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

    O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    Where, for example, detention is sought to be justified by reference to Article 5 § 1 (c) in order to bring a person before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence, the Court has insisted upon the need for the authorities to furnish some facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed the offence in question (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, §§ 34-35, ECHR 2001-X).
  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 25119/09
    The Court has also made it clear that the word "after" in sub-paragraph (a) does not simply mean that the detention must follow the conviction in point of time: in addition, the detention must result from, follow and depend upon or occur by virtue of the conviction (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 35, Series A no. 50; and Grosskopf, cited above, § 44).
  • EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

    LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht