Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,15428
EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08 (https://dejure.org/2016,15428)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.06.2016 - 28472/08 (https://dejure.org/2016,15428)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Juni 2016 - 28472/08 (https://dejure.org/2016,15428)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,15428) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    I.N. v. UKRAINE

    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

    WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08
    That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

    NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08
    "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application in order to protect individuals from arbitrariness, such protection being the purpose of Article 5 (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08
    Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08
    In this connection, the effective enjoyment of the right to compensation guaranteed by Article 5 § 5 must be ensured with a sufficient degree of certainty (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 182, ECHR 2012, with further references).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 28472/08
    As regards the deprivation of liberty of persons with a mental disorder, an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty on the grounds that he or she is of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends on the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 29804/16

    TSYOGE FON MANTEYFEL v. UKRAINE

    However, in the absence of evidence that the award has been paid to the applicant, the Court considers that the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of her confinement after 19 February 2017 and accepts the national courts' findings that her detention in hospital during that period was unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, I.N. v. Ukraine, no. 28472/08, §§ 85-88, 23 June 2016).
  • EGMR - 32654/18 (anhängig)

    PĘDRAK v. POLAND

    Was Article 6 § 1, under its civil head, applicable to the proceedings in question? If so, has the appointment as expert of the medical specialist employed by the hospital hindered the principle of equality of arms and rendered the proceedings unfair contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? (see, I.N. v. Ukraine, no. 28472/08, §§ 65-69, 23 June 2016 and Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, 11 December 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