Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,61347
EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01 (https://dejure.org/2008,61347)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.05.2008 - 75157/01 (https://dejure.org/2008,61347)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. Mai 2008 - 75157/01 (https://dejure.org/2008,61347)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,61347) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SADAYKOV v. BULGARIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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

  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

    Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01
    Quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty, it must be sufficiently accessible and precise, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 55, ECHR 2001-II, citing Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 850-51, § 50).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01
    Seeing that these circumstances constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom, only a narrow interpretation is consistent with the aim of this provision (see, as recent authorities, Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42 in limine, ECHR 2002-I; and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 396, ECHR 2005-III).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

    CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01
    Seeing that these circumstances constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom, only a narrow interpretation is consistent with the aim of this provision (see, as recent authorities, Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42 in limine, ECHR 2002-I; and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 396, ECHR 2005-III).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 13178/03

    MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01
    The Court points out at the outset that, while the Contracting States are entitled to control the entry and residence of non-nationals on their territory, this right must be exercised in conformity with the provisions of the Convention, including Article 5 (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 96, ECHR 2006-XI).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01
    Even assuming, however, that by initiating proceedings against the order for his deportation the applicant would have been able to indirectly provoke a review of the lawfulness of his detention pending deportation, the Court still does not consider that the Government have made out their claim that the procedures which they referred to (see paragraph 16 above) constituted effective remedies for the purposes of Articles 5 § 4 and 35 § 1. It is clear that an appeal to the higher administrative authority - which in the instant case meant the Minister of Internal Affairs or one of his subordinates - would not have satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 4, which states that proceedings against detention have to be brought before a "court", a term implying, firstly, independence of the executive and of the parties to the case (see Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 44, § 24 in limine) and, secondly, guarantees of a judicial procedure (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, judgment of 18 November 1970, Series A no. 12, pp. 40-41, § 76; and also, mutatis mutandis, Chahal, cited above, p. 1866, § 130).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 75325/11

    N.M. c. ROUMANIE

    Aussi la Cour examinera-t-elle cette exception dans le cadre de son appréciation du grief formulé sous l'angle de l'article 5 § 4 de la Convention, grief qu'elle abordera en premier lieu (Öcalan c. Turquie [GC], no 46221/99, § 61, CEDH 2005-IV, et Sadaïkov c. Bulgarie, no 75157/01, § 18, 22 mai 2008).

    Cette disposition exige qu"« une procédure d'expulsion [soit] en cours'; il n'y a donc pas lieu de rechercher si la décision d'expulsion initiale se justifie ou non au regard de la législation interne ou de la Convention (Sadaïkov c. Bulgarie, no 75157/01, § 21, 22 mai 2008).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht