Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection partially rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection partially joined to merits (victim) Preliminary objection partially allowed (victim) No violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  It is to be recalled that the aim of Article 5 § 4 is to ensure a "speedy" review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for instance, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 46 and 55, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  When the detention does not, or is unlawful, the judicial officer must then have the power to release (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 40, ECHR 2006-...).

 
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  [3] See, for example: Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311; Mazzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV.
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  Whereas promptness is to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 25, § 52), the significance to be attached to those features can never be taken to the point of impairing the very essence of the right guaranteed by Article 5 § 3, that is to the point of effectively negativing the State's obligation to ensure a prompt release or a prompt appearance before a judicial authority (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 32-33, § 59).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  The Court recalls that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention provides persons arrested or detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence with a guarantee against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 49, 29 April 1999).

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 10211/12

  Sicherungsverwahrung für deutschen Sexualmörder gebilligt

  November 2008, und Stephens./. Malta (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33740/06, Rdnr. 84, 21.
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  The Court notes, however, that it has held on numerous occasions that constitutional proceedings in Malta are rather cumbersome for Article 5 § 4 purposes, and that lodging a constitutional application does not ensure a speedy review of the lawfulness of an applicant's detention (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000; Kadem, cited above, § 53; Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 90, 21 April 2009; and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA v. MALTA

  However, the Court has also held on numerous occasions that constitutional proceedings in Malta are rather cumbersome for Article 5 § 4 purposes, and that lodging a constitutional application does not ensure a speedy review of the lawfulness of an applicant's detention (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000; Kadem, cited above § 53; Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 90, 21 April 2009; and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 45593/13

  JOVIC v. CROATIA

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see, for instance, Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 46 and 55, ECHR 2002-I, and Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 83, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 55102/13

  V.R. v. CROATIA

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see, for instance, Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 46 and 55, ECHR 2002-I, and Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 83, 21 April 2009).