Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAVLETIC v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (victim non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 No separate issue under Art. 13 No violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 39359/98
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 56811/00

  AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  On that account, they may be considered in principle estopped from raising it at this stage (Rule 55 of the Rules of Court; see inter alia, Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, § 22, 11 July 2002; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 44, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  The Court recalls that in its decision on the admissibility of the application it dismissed the Government's objection, with reference to its practice in similar cases (see, for example, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 44; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 28 July 1992, Series A no. 241-A, § 79 and Leperlier v. France, no. 13091/87, Commission decision of 1 October 1990, with further reference).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  The Court recalls that in its decision on the admissibility of the application it dismissed the Government's objection, with reference to its practice in similar cases (see, for example, Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, § 44; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 28 July 1992, Series A no. 241-A, § 79 and Leperlier v. France, no. 13091/87, Commission decision of 1 October 1990, with further reference).

 
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  A civil court invited to rule, in the context of proceedings under the State Liability Act of 1969, on the possible misconduct of authorities dealing with the criminal case of the applicant does not have jurisdiction to order release if the detention is unlawful, as required by Article 5 § 4 (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 February 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61).
• EGMR, 01.10.1982 - 8692/79

  PIERSACK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  The applicant argued, with reference to the Court's judgment in the case of Piersack v. Belgium (judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53) and to Article 30(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the judge in question lacked impartiality and should not have decided the criminal charges against him.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12129/86

  HENNINGS v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 39359/98

  In view of these conclusions the domestic courts cannot be said to have displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings as required by the Court's case-law (see, among other authorities, Assenov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3300, § 154, and W. v. Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A no. 251-A, p. 15, § 30).

• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  At the outset the Court notes that an argument in similar terms was dismissed by the Court in the case of Pavletic v. Slovakia (no. 39359/98, §§ 60-61, 22 June 2004).
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 15259/11

  MASLÁK c. SLOVAQUIE

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the other paragraphs has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Convention institutions (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X, and also Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, § 95, 22 June 2004).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 54737/13

  TYKVOVÁ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Dans les affaires Pavletic c. Slovaquie (no 39359/98, § 72, 22 juin 2004) et Smatana c. République tchèque (no 18642/04, §§ 89 et 111, 27 septembre 2007), la Cour a par ailleurs noté que le recours fondé sur les articles 11-13 du code civil n'était pas à même de remédier aux griefs tirés de l'article 5 de la Convention puisqu'un tribunal civil saisi d'une action en protection des droits de la personnalité n'avait pas la compétence pour s'ingérer dans les pouvoirs des autorités agissant en matière pénale tels que prévus par le code de procédure pénale.
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  VRENCEV v. SERBIA

  Concerning the Government's submission that the applicant should have filed a civil claim based on Article 200 of the Obligations Act, the Court notes that the rights guaranteed under Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4, are to be distinguished from the right to receive compensation for a violation thereof, which is why a civil action for damages cannot be deemed effective as regards the applicant's complaints (see, among many other authorities, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; Pavletic v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 39359/98, ECHR 13 May 2005; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 273-B, § 24).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 11037/12

  MASLÁK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 5 of the Convention is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the other paragraphs has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Convention institutions (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 49, ECHR 2002-X, and also Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, § 95, 22 June 2004).