Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 7, Art. 13, Art. 46 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2012, 2415

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  The background facts of the case are set out in the Grand Chamber's judgment of 12 February 2008 concerning the applicant's first application before the Court (Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, §§ 12-30, ECHR 2008-...).

  Application no. 21906/04 and the Court"s judgment of 12 February 2008.

  On 3 June 2004 the applicant lodged an application with the Court (application no. 21906/04) against the Republic of Cyprus under Article 34 of the Convention.

  (d) the Government had not yet introduced the required legislation for establishing a parole board despite the bill that had been submitted by the Government before the Court in the context of application no. 21906/04; and,.

  The Supreme Court also noted that the Grand Chamber in its judgment of 12 February 2008 concerning application no. 21906/04 had found that there had been no violation of Articles 3 and 14 and had not been able to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 4 as it had not been properly raised by the applicant.

  Finally, the applicant complained under Article 46 of the Convention that the Government had not executed the Grand Chamber's judgment in relation to his first application (no. 21906/04).

• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  Consequently, the applicant claimed that at the material time, the system of conditional release had not satisfied Article 5 § 4. Relying on the Court's judgments in Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, § 64, Series A no. 33) and Keus v. the Netherlands (25 October 1990, § 28, Series A no. 185-C), the applicant maintained that neither the Attorney-General nor the President satisfied the requirements of independence and impartiality under the above provision.

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.
• EGMR, 04.01.2011 - 8559/08

  DOWSETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004-III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

  FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004-III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  In the Government's view the Release Board and the provisions of the Law as amended satisfied the requirements set down by the Court's case-law (they cited De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp, cited above; Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114; Hussain v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Singh v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 25.10.2001 - 44531/98

  RONGONI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.
• EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 38498/97

  RANDO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  In particular, the Court has stated that the Committee of Ministers" role in this sphere does not mean that measures taken by a respondent State to remedy a violation found by the Court cannot raise a new issue undecided by the judgment (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 62, ECHR 2009-...; Haase, cited above; Hakkar v. France (dec.), no. 43580/04, 7 April 2009; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Rongoni v. Italy, no. 44531/98, § 13, 25 October 2001; Rando v. Italy, no. 38498/97, § 17, 15 February 2000; Pailot v. France, 22 April 1998, § 57, Reports 1998-II; Leterme v. France, 29 April 1998, Reports 1998-III; and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250) and, as such, form the subject of a new application that may be dealt with by the Court.
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 13677/03

  KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  It has therefore refused to examine complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, declaring such complaints inadmissible ratione materiae (see Moldovan and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 8229/04, 15 February 2011; Dowsett v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) (dec.), no. 8559/08, 4 January 2011; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, ECHR 2004-III; Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; Lyons and Others, cited above; Krcmár and Others, cited above; and Franz Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 31.01.1995 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 5980/07

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 69190/01

  KRCMAR et AUTRES contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 43580/04

  HAKKAR c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 8229/04

  MOLDOVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 11057/02

  Entziehung der elterlichen Sorge
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 8844/12

  Stollenwerk ./. Deutschland: Konventionsverletzung durch Ablehnung einer …

  Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention kommt normalerweise nicht zum Tragen, wenn es um Haft geht, die unter Artikel 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a der Konvention fällt, es sei denn, die Gründe, die die Freiheitsentziehung der betroffenen Person rechtfertigen, können sich mit der Zeit verändern (siehe Kafkaris./. Zypern (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9644/09, Rdnr. 58, 21.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court considers that, even assuming that this submission is intended to raise a separate issue from the complaint made under Article 3, it has been determined by its recent admissibility decision in Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no. 2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011.
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 10511/10

  MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà tranché la question soulevée par ce grief dans la décision sur la recevabilité qu'elle a rendue en l'affaire Kafkaris c. Chypre (no 2) ((déc.), no 9644/09, 21 juin 2011).

 
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Chamber could have looked more carefully at previous cases in which the Court decided that complaints about the unsatisfactory execution of its judgments were outside its competence ratione materiae (in particular, Lyons and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 15227/93, ECHR 2003-IX; Steck-Risch and Others v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 29061/08, 11 May 2010; Schelling v. Austria (dec.), no. 46128/07, 16 September 2010; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no.2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 68250/11

  EROL v. GERMANY

  Es ist festzuhalten, dass die Freiheitsentziehung des Beschwerdeführers unter Artikel 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a der Konvention fiel und Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention im Hinblick auf Freiheitsentziehungen nach Verurteilung normalerweise nicht zum Tragen kommt, es sei denn, die Gründe für die Freiheitsentziehung einer Person können sich mit der Zeit verändern (siehe Kafkaris./. Zypern (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9644/09, Rdnr. 58, 21.
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 50421/08

  SIDABRAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Although the Court can examine whether measures taken by a respondent State in execution of one of its judgments are compatible with the substantive clauses of the Convention (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) (no. 2), cited above, §§ 61-68 and 78-98), it has consistently ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to verify, by reference to Article 46 § 1, whether a Contracting Party has complied with the obligations imposed on it by one of the Court's judgments (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (Article 50), 1 April 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Mehemi (no. 2), cited above, § 43; Haase and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 34499/04, 7 February 2008; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 31 in fine, 10 April 2008; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 121, ECHR 2009; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 9644/09, § 74, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 28727/11

  KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  They further considered that this case was not of a kind where the Court is called upon to examine whether measures taken by a respondent State in execution of one of its judgments are compatible with the substantive clauses of the Convention (referring to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (Article 50), 1 April 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 43, ECHR 2003-IV; Haase and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 34499/04, 7 February 2008; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 31 in fine, 10 April 2008; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 121, 15 January 2009; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no. 2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011; making further reliance on the Commission decisions Times Newspapers Ltd. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 10243/83, 6 March 1985, DR 41, p. 123; Ruiz-Mateos and Others v. Spain, no. 24469/94, 2 December 1994, DR 79-B, p. 141; and Oberschlick v. Austria, nos.