Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M. B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EuGH, 15.02.2016 - C-601/15

  Das Unionsrecht gestattet die Inhaftierung eines Asylbewerbers, wenn dies aus …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  In the view of the applicant, this constituted a crucial difference between the situation in his case and that in the case of N. in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter "the CJEU") had delivered a judgment on 15 February 2016 (C-601/15 PPU, Grand Chamber judgment, EU:C:2016:84; see paragraph 34 below).

  Case-law of the CJEU 34. In the case of N. (C-601/15 PPU, Grand Chamber judgment, EU:C:2016:84) the CJEU was asked, by way of a request for a preliminary ruling, to consider the validity of point (e) of the first sub-paragraph of Article 8(3) of the Reception Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  Each of those grounds meets a specific need and is self-standing (see N., C-601/15 PPU, Grand Chamber judgment, EU:C:2016:84, paragraph 59).

• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 62116/12

  Aufnahmebedingungen, Ungarn, Inhaftierung, Recht auf Freiheit, Abschiebung, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  In this regard, although the European Court of Human Rights held in the judgment in Nabil and Others v. Hungary [no. 62116/12, § 29, 22 September 2015] that a deprivation of liberty based on [Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention] will be justified only for as long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress and that if such proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under that provision, that judgment does not exclude the possibility of a Member State ordering - in such a way that the guarantees provided for by that provision are observed - the detention of a third-country national in respect of whom a return decision accompanied by an entry ban was adopted prior to the lodging of an application for international protection.

  In his application to the Court, the applicant argued, relying on Nabil and Others v. Hungary (no. 62116/12, 22 September 2015), that neither the competent authorities nor the domestic courts had examined whether there was a real prospect that he would be expelled to Syria or any third country if his asylum application were to be rejected.

• EuGH, 08.04.2014 - C-293/12

  Der Gerichtshof erklärt die Richtlinie über die Vorratsspeicherung von Daten für …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  Article 6 of the Charter states in this regard that everyone has the right not only to liberty but also to security of person (see, to that effect, judgment in Digital Rights Ireland and Others, C-293/12 and C-594/12, EU:C:2014:238, paragraph 42).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  For example, in the case of the detention of a person of unsound mind pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (e), the Court has held that there must be medical evidence establishing that the person's mental state is such as to justify his or her compulsory hospitalisation (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
• EuGH, 14.09.2017 - C-18/16

  K. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Normen für die Aufnahme von Personen, die …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  In the case of K. (C-18/16, judgment of 14 September 2017, EU:C:2017:680) the CJEU was called upon to determine the validity of points (a) and (b) of the first sub-paragraph of Article 8(3) of the Reception Conditions Directive in the light of Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 5560/19

  K.I. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  It is primarily for the national authorities to interpret the applicable domestic law provisions, if necessary, in conformity with EU law (see K.I. v. France, no. 5560/19, § 123, 15 April 2021).
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 15297/09

  KANAGARATNAM ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  For example, the Court has considered that placing a family with young children for a particularly long period in a closed asylum reception centre, which was manifestly unsuitable for children, was not in compliance with Article 5 § 1 (f) (see Kanagaratnam and Others v. Belgium, no. 15297/09, § 94, 13 December 2011).
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 62676/16

  ABOYA BOA JEAN v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  In Aboya Boa Jean v. Malta (no. 62676/16, §§ 57-60, 2 April 2019), the Court reached similar conclusions.
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 23048/19

  A.M.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  In cases such as the present, where the rights of vulnerable people are at stake, there is a need for the domestic courts and the Court to expressly refer and pay full regard, aside from the pertinent provisions of Article 5 of the Convention, to the principle of effectiveness and also to respect for human dignity, the latter being in my view an integral aspect or component of the principle of effectiveness, both as a norm of international law and a method of interpretation (see also on this, paragraphs 8-9 of my partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion in A.M.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 23048/19, 24 October 2023).
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  "52. As regards the guarantee enshrined in the first limb of [Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention], in accordance with which no one is to be deprived of his liberty, except in the case of the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, it should be noted that that guarantee does not preclude necessary detention measures being taken against third-country nationals who have made an application for international protection, provided that such a measure is lawful and implemented in accordance with the objective of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, to that effect,... Saadi [cited above, §§ 64-74, and] Mahamed Jama v. Malta, [no. 10290/13, §§ 136-40, 26 November 2015]).
• EGMR, 18.04.2023 - 43966/19

  N.M. c. BELGIQUE