Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SÝKORA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Procedure prescribed by law Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sýkora v. the Czech Republic

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07
• EGMR, 27.05.2015 - 23419/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  While his confinement was confirmed after five days by the guardian this does not alter the fact that the applicant was deprived of his liberty involuntarily and that his continued hospitalisation against his will constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of that provision (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 122-123, ECHR 2012; D.D. v. Lithuania, no. 13469/06, § 122, 14 February 2012; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 109, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  The instant case, where the forced administration of medication lasted for twenty days, differs from the case of X v. Finland (no. 34806/04, § 220, 3 July 2012) where the Court did not consider a compensatory remedy sufficient, and required a preventive remedy because there the forced administration of medication lasted for almost a year.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 112, 10 September 2010; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  The Court has outlined three minimum conditions for the lawful detention of an individual on the basis of unsoundness of mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention: he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; and Stanev, cited above, § 145).
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  Moreover, a detention cannot be considered "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 if the domestic procedure does not provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness (see H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 124, ECHR 2004-IX; Shtukaturov, cited above, § 113; and L.M. v. Latvia, no. 26000/02, § 54, 19 July 2011).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 112, 10 September 2010; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 23419/07

  While his confinement was confirmed after five days by the guardian this does not alter the fact that the applicant was deprived of his liberty involuntarily and that his continued hospitalisation against his will constituted a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of that provision (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 122-123, ECHR 2012; D.D. v. Lithuania, no. 13469/06, § 122, 14 February 2012; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 109, ECHR 2008).