Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11
• EGMR, 09.01.2019 - 11537/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement of "speediness" under Article 5 § 4 must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII).

  Taking as the starting point the date on which the applicant applied for release, and as the end point the final decision by the appellate court (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 54, Series A no. 107), the Court reiterates that in the yearly review proceedings of 2010/11 it took the domestic courts little more than five months to decide; in the review proceedings of 2011/12 it took them almost eleven months; and in the 2013 proceedings less than four months.

• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  Long intervals in the context of automatic periodic review may give rise to a violation of Article 5 § 4 (see, among other authorities, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 77, Series A no. 244).".
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  CONSTANCIA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  Where no other possibility exists, for instance because the person concerned has refused to appear for an examination, a medical expert's assessment on the basis of the case file of the actual state of that person's mental health must at least be sought, failing which it cannot be maintained that the person has reliably been shown to be of unsound mind, which would in turn render his or her further detention unlawful (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 47, ECHR 2000-X, and Constancia v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 73560/12, § 26, 3 March 2015).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  "36. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention proclaims the right to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention, and to an order for release if it proved unlawful (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, ECHR 2000-III, and Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, § 119, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  The Court must also examine whether any new relevant factors that have arisen in the interval between periodic reviews have been assessed, without unreasonable delay, by a court having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the detention has become "unlawful" in the light of these new factors (see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 215, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 3300/10

  S ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  In deciding whether an individual should be detained as a person "of unsound mind", the national authorities are to be recognised as having a certain discretion, in particular on the merits of clinical diagnoses, since 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 Winterwerp, cited above, § 40; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 43, Series A no. 46; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 98, ECHR 2004-IX; and S. v. Germany, no. 3300/10, § 81, 28 June 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  An individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; 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 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39, and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 61272/09

  B. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  The relevant time at which a person must be reliably established to be of unsound mind, for the requirements of sub paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1, is the date of the adoption of the measure depriving that person of his liberty as a result of that condition (compare Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 28, Series A no. 75, and B v. Germany, no. 61272/09, § 68, 19 April 2012).
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  Although the amount of time taken by the relevant proceedings is obviously an important element, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed (see Merie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 664/05, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  The relevant time at which a person must be reliably established to be of unsound mind, for the requirements of sub paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1, is the date of the adoption of the measure depriving that person of his liberty as a result of that condition (compare Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 28, Series A no. 75, and B v. Germany, no. 61272/09, § 68, 19 April 2012).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI