Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.S. v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.S. v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 75450/12

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  Where an individual raises an arguable claim of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V).

  This means, among other things, that the Court must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 77, ECHR 1999-V; and Henaf, cited above, § 32).

• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 46372/09

  KARAMANOF c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  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 particular circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 III; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 46, ECHR 2000-X; Karamanof v. Greece, no. 46372/09, § 42, 26 July 2011; Stanev, cited above, § 143; M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, § 57, 19 April 2012; and Rudenko, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  Furthermore, the Court has constantly held that 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 by objective medical expertise 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 on the persistence of such a disorder (see, for example, Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014).

 
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  Furthermore, the Court has constantly held that 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 by objective medical expertise 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 on the persistence of such a disorder (see, for example, Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012; and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 59, 18 February 2014).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  In addition, according to the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, §§ 36-40, Series A no. 40; Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, § 32, ECHR 2003 XI; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 86).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75, and Rudenko, cited above, § 100).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  The importance of what is at stake for him or her, taken together with the very nature of the affliction, compel this conclusion (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 23, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 2452/04

  M. v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  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 particular circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 III; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 46, ECHR 2000-X; Karamanof v. Greece, no. 46372/09, § 42, 26 July 2011; Stanev, cited above, § 143; M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, § 57, 19 April 2012; and Rudenko, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  HENAF c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  In addition, according to the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, §§ 36-40, Series A no. 40; Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, § 32, ECHR 2003 XI; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 86).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  Even when strictly speaking no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment might have occurred (see, amongst many others, Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, §§ 96-97, 19 June 2012; Bures, cited above, § 127; and Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 61827/00

  GLASS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 14612/02

  WIKTORKO AGAINST POLAND
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 71156/01

  MEMBERS OF THE GLDANI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  HAJNAL v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 41124/02

  FILIP c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 60561/14

  S.M. c. CROATIE

  Consequently, the prima facie evidence to which the Court refers in this judgment (see paragraphs 324, 325, 331 and 332) corresponds to the notion of "sufficiently clear indications" to which the Court commonly refers under Article 3 in this regard (see, for example, Hassan v. the United Kingdom ï�?GCï��, no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014; M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 75450/12, § 76, 19 February 2015; Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, cited above, § 97; and Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• AG Saarbrücken, 31.08.2019 - ZBG-AR 1306/19
  Es kann dahinstehen, ob eine Fixierung einer Person, deren Freiheit entzogen worden ist, allein wegen Artikel 104 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Grundgesetz unzulässig ist, weil möglicherweise die Fixierung eine körperliche oder seelische Misshandlung darstellt (vgl. dazu etwa: Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Urteil vom 19. Februar 2015 - 75450/12), denn es fehlt an einer gesetzlichen Grundlage für die freiheitsentziehende Maßnahme.