Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.W. v. AUSTRIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  P.W. v. AUSTRIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  Furthermore, not all differences in treatment - or failure to treat differently persons in relevantly different situations - constitute discrimination, but only those devoid of an "objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 135, 19 December 2018; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 56, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  The Court should not act as a fourth-instance body and will therefore not question under Article 6 § 1 the national courts' assessment, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 28932/14

  HODZIC CONTRE LA CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  When the national courts have examined all aspects of different expert reports on the necessity of an individual's psychiatric internment, the Court will not intervene unless their findings are arbitrary or unscientific (see Hod?¾ic v. Croatia, no. 28932/14, § 63, 4 April 2019, and Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, § 62, 18 February 2014).

 
• EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 26711/07

  POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  Where the defence insists on the court hearing a witness or taking other evidence (such as an expert report, for instance), it is for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to accept that evidence for examination at the trial (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07 and 2 others, § 95, 12 May 2016, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 718, 25 July 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 59152/08

  N. c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  Therefore, any measure taken without prior consultation of the interested person will, as a rule, require careful scrutiny (see N. v. Romania, no. 59152/08, § 146, 28 November 2017, and Stanev, cited above, § 153).
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 11082/06

  Chodorkowski: Moskauer Prozesse sind unfair

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  Where the defence insists on the court hearing a witness or taking other evidence (such as an expert report, for instance), it is for the domestic courts to decide whether it is necessary or advisable to accept that evidence for examination at the trial (see Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, nos. 26711/07 and 2 others, § 95, 12 May 2016, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, § 718, 25 July 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  In addition, the quality of the evidence must be taken into consideration, including whether the circumstances in which it was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 90, 10 March 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 43977/13

  KADUSIC c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  Any other approach falls short of the required protection against arbitrariness, inherent in Article 5 of the Convention (see Kadusic v. Switzerland, no. 43977/13, § 43, 9 January 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  As regards the second requirement for an individual to be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind", namely that the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement, the Court reiterates that a mental disorder may be considered as being of a degree warranting compulsory confinement if it is found that the confinement of the person concerned is necessary because the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to cure or alleviate his condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent him from, for example, causing harm to himself or other persons (ibid., § 133; see also Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 146, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 10425/19

  Where no other possibility exists, for instance owing to a refusal of the person concerned to appear for an examination, at least an assessment by a medical expert on the basis of the file must be sought, failing which it cannot be maintained that the person has reliably been shown to be of unsound mind (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, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  CONSTANCIA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY