Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIHAILOVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae) Preliminary objection partially allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae) Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mihailovs v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 35939/10

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  This is so in cases where the original detention was initially authorised by a judicial authority (see X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 52, Series A no. 46), and it is all the more true in the circumstances of the present case where the applicant's placement in the Īle Centre was initiated by a private individual, namely the applicant's guardian, and decided upon by the municipal and social care authorities without any involvement of the courts (see D.D. v. Lithuania, cited above, § 164, and Kedzior, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  A person can only be considered to have been deprived of his liberty if, as an additional subjective element, he has not validly consented to the confinement in question (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 74, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  In particular, it reiterates that it has found that there has been a deprivation of liberty in circumstances such as the following: (a) where the applicant, who had been declared legally incapable and admitted to a psychiatric hospital at his legal representative's request, had unsuccessfully attempted to leave the hospital (see Shtukaturov, cited above, § 108); (b) where the applicant had initially consented to be admitted to a clinic but had subsequently attempted to escape (see Storck, cited above, § 76); (c) where the applicant was an adult incapable of giving his consent to admission to a psychiatric institution which, nonetheless, he had never attempted to leave (see H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, §§ 89-94, ECHR 2004-IX); and (d) where the applicant, a mentally incapacitated individual, who had been placed in a social care home in a block which he was able to leave, was nevertheless under constant supervision and was not free to leave the home without permission whenever he wished so (see Stanev, cited above, §§ 124-130).

 
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  In order to ascertain whether the Government's request under Article 37 § 1 (b) can be accepted in the present case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been redressed (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007-I, and, more recently, Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 33, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  H.M. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  As regards the first argument, the Government emphasised that the applicant had been held in an institution which was not a place of deprivation of liberty, and relied on H.M. v. Switzerland (no. 39187/98, §§ 40-48, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  The applicant, referring to the case of Shtukaturov v. Russia (no. 44009/05, ECHR 2008), alleged that the Latvian authorities had failed to abide by the principles established therein.
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  The notion underlying the term "procedure prescribed by law" is one of fair and proper procedure, namely that any measure depriving a person of his liberty should issue from, and be executed by, an appropriate authority and should not be arbitrary (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 45, and, more recently, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 148, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  The Court will examine this complaint under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (and not under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 115, ECHR 2012) which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  The relevant provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesas likums) and its case-law have been quoted elsewhere (see Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  Furthermore, relying on the judgment in the case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33), the applicant noted that the Convention does not state what is to be understood by the words "persons of unsound mind".

• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 14912/07

  ARACKIS v. LATVIA

  The Court has had an opportunity to examine complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, similar to those raised in the present case (see Mihailovs v. Latvia, no. 35939/10, §§ 128 et seq., 22 January 2013).