Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,13816
EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83 (https://dejure.org/1992,13816)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.09.1992 - 10533/83 (https://dejure.org/1992,13816)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. September 1992 - 10533/83 (https://dejure.org/1992,13816)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,13816) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    Non-violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 Non-violation de l'art. 5-3 Non-violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 10 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    HERCZEGFALVY v. AUSTRIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 10 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - ...

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

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 ... (124)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

    KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    The Court recalls that the expression "in accordance with the law" requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in national law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and compatible with the rule of law (see, inter alia, the Kruslin and Huvig v. France judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, paras. 26-27, and no. 176-B, p. 52, paras. 25-26).

    If a law confers a discretion on a public authority, it must indicate the scope of that discretion, although the degree of precision required will depend upon the particular subject matter (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, paras. 67-68; and the Kruslin and Huvig judgments cited above, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 22-23, para. 30, and no. 176-B, pp. 54-55, para. 29).

  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    Although under Austrian law the detention was still pre-trial detention (see paragraph 15 above), it now came under paragraph 1 (e) alone of Article 5 (art. 5-1-e), as the Regional Court had not convicted or sentenced Mr Herczegfalvy in view of his lack of criminal responsibility (see paragraph 14 above; and see inter alia the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, pp. 17-18, para. 39, and the B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-15, paras. 36 and 38).

    The procedure provided for in Article 25 (3) of the Criminal Code amounts to an automatic periodic review of a judicial character (see inter alia the X v. the United Kingdom judgment cited above, Series A no. 46, p. 23, para. 52).

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    If a law confers a discretion on a public authority, it must indicate the scope of that discretion, although the degree of precision required will depend upon the particular subject matter (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, paras. 67-68; and the Kruslin and Huvig judgments cited above, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 22-23, para. 30, and no. 176-B, pp. 54-55, para. 29).

    Admittedly, as the Court has previously stated, it would scarcely be possible to formulate a law to cover every eventuality (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others judgment cited above, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88).

     
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    It must, however, be acknowledged that the national authorities have a certain discretion when deciding whether a person is to be detained as "of unsound mind", as it is for them in the first place to evaluate the evidence put before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review their decisions from the point of view of the Convention (see the Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 18, paras. 39-40, and the Wassink judgment cited above, Series A no. 185-A, p. 11, para. 25).
  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

    B. ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    Although under Austrian law the detention was still pre-trial detention (see paragraph 15 above), it now came under paragraph 1 (e) alone of Article 5 (art. 5-1-e), as the Regional Court had not convicted or sentenced Mr Herczegfalvy in view of his lack of criminal responsibility (see paragraph 14 above; and see inter alia the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, pp. 17-18, para. 39, and the B. v. Austria judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-15, paras. 36 and 38).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    The Court has already stated that the reasons which the Austrian courts regarded as justifying the detention in question were "relevant" and "sufficient"; it therefore remains to be ascertained whether the authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, as the most recent authority, the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 35, para. 84).
  • EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79

    MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
    If a law confers a discretion on a public authority, it must indicate the scope of that discretion, although the degree of precision required will depend upon the particular subject matter (see, inter alia, the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 33, para. 88; the Malone v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82, pp. 32-33, paras. 67-68; and the Kruslin and Huvig judgments cited above, Series A no. 176-A, pp. 22-23, para. 30, and no. 176-B, pp. 54-55, para. 29).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

    Eine Maßnahme, die aus Sicht gefestigter medizinischer Grundsätze als therapeutische Notwendigkeit geboten ist, dürfte grundsätzlich nicht als unmenschlich oder erniedrigend eingestuft werden können (siehe insbesondere Herczegfalvy ./. Österreich , Urteil vom 24. September 1992, Serie A Bd. 244, S. 25-26, Rdnr. 82, und vorgenanntes Urteil Gennadi Naoumenko , Rdnr. 112).
  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

    Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

    Soweit die Beschwerdeführerin vortrug, dass sie während ihrer Freiheitsentziehung gegen ihren Willen medizinisch behandelt worden sei, erinnert der Gerichtshof daran, dass auch eine leichte Beeinträchtigung der körperlichen Unversehrtheit einer Person als Eingriff in das Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens nach Artikel 8 anzusehen ist, wenn er gegen den Willen der betreffenden Person erfolgt (siehe u. a. Rechtssache X. ./. Österreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 8278/78, Kommissionsentscheidung vom 13. Dezember 1979, DR 18, S. 156, Rechtssache A. B. ./. die Schweiz , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 20872/92, Kommissionsentscheidung vom 22. Februar 1995, DR 80-B, S. 70, und entsprechend Rechtssache Herczegfalvy ./. Österreich , Urteil vom 24. September 1992, Serie A, Bd. 244, S. 26, Nr. 86).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

    Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

    Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of that law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244; Stanev, cited above, § 143; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 125, ECHR 2013; and L.M. v. Slovenia, no. 32863/05, § 121, 12 June 2014).
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