Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1992,18267
EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18267)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.09.1992 - 11613/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18267)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. September 1992 - 11613/85 (https://dejure.org/1992,18267)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1992,18267) 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

    KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Non-violation de l'Art. 5-1 Non-violation de l'Art. 5-4 (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KOLOMPAR v. BELGIUM

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) No violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

  • 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 ... (30)

  • EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 22414/93

    CHAHAL c. ROYAUME-UNI

    1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) (see the Quinn v. France judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19, para. 48, and also the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, para. 36).

    Moreover, what is in issue here is not, as in the Kolompar v. Belgium case (judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C), an instance of extradition requested by another State with respect to a prison sentence of several years, but rather an order made by the respondent State for the deportation of a person who, as is stated in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment, had been convicted there of only two minor offences, convictions that had since been quashed.

    As regards decisions on Article 5 (art. 5) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the case of Kolompar v. Belgium (judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 64, para. 68), the Commission delivered the following opinion on an extradition problem, which can be transposed to deportation cases:.

  • EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

    A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    In particular, it is not open to a Government to put to the Court arguments which are inconsistent with the position they adopted before the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 29 November 1991, § 47, Series A no. 222; Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 235-C).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

    OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

    Moreover, it considers that the Government are precluded from making submissions as regards preliminary exceptions which are inconsistent with concessions previously made in their pleadings before the Commission (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, para. 47, and the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, para. 32).
  • EGMR, 25.06.1996 - 19776/92

    AMUUR v. FRANCE

    They could not therefore "validly complain of a situation which they had largely created", as the Court itself had held in the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992 (Series A no. 235-C).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

    CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

    La Cour constate que cette détention provisoire et la détention des requérants aux fins de la procédure d'extradition se sont chevauchées en partie (Kolompar c. Belgique, arrêt du 24 septembre 1992, série A no 235-C, et Scott c. Espagne, arrêt du 18 décembre 1996, Recueil 1996-VI).
  • EGMR, 08.12.1999 - 23885/94

    FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY PARTY (ÖZDEP) v. TURKEY

    In addition, as the Court has already noted, section 108 of the Law on the regulation of political parties provides "[a] resolution by the competent body of a political party dissolving that party after an application for its dissolution has been lodged shall not prevent the proceedings before the Constitutional Court continuing or deprive any dissolution order that is made of its legal effects." It therefore follows that as domestic law provides that a voluntarily dissolved political party remains in existence for the purposes of dissolution by the Constitutional Court, the Government cannot contend before the Court that ÖZDEP was no longer in existence when the dissolution order was made (see, mutatis mutandis , the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32 and the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A 246-A, p. 22, § 42).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

    RUSTAMOV v. RUSSIA

    Further, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the applicant's own conduct gave rise to an aggregate delay of three months (see, in so far as relevant, Kolompar v. Belgium, 24 September 1992, § 42, Series A no. 235-C), since the applicant only appealed against the first-instance judgment of 12 November 2010 in February 2011 (see paragraph 62 above).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2001 - 41340/98

    REFAH PARTISI (PARTI DE LA PROSPERITE) ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    In the Court's view, the applicants cannot derive argument from the fact that Refah's leaders were never convicted of acts contrary to the principle of secularism when such acts are no longer punishable offences in Turkey, a development which the applicants themselves called for and argued in favour of at the time when the law was changed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland judgment of 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222, pp. 21-22, § 47, and the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 54, § 32).
  • EGMR, 04.08.1999 - 31464/96

    DOUIYEB v. THE NETHERLANDS

    The Court recalls that the mere fact that the Court has found no breach of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 5 does not mean that it is dispensed from carrying out a review of compliance with paragraph 4; the two paragraphs are separate provisions and observance of the former does not necessarily entail observance of the latter (see the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 57, § 45).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 41416/08

    M. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    The above distinguishes the present case from the situation that obtained in, for example, Chahal (cited above) and Kolompar v. Belgium (24 September 1992, § 40, Series A no. 235-C).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

    RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 4691/06

    JUSIC c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 13229/03

    SAADI c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 56005/10

    FIROZ MUNEER c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 50012/08

    M.S. c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 41923/06

    ARIBAUD c. LUXEMBOURG

  • EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 58302/10

    G.K. c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 56811/00

    AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21335/93

    SCOTT v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 48068/06

    NOVIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 17.06.2003 - 53652/00

    RAF c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 18.03.2003 - 64117/00

    GUALA contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 53468/99

    MORA DO VALE et AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  • EKMR, 25.10.1996 - 32025/96

    KAREEM v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 14160/08

    DOLINSKIY v. ESTONIA

  • EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28023/95

    SINGH VIRK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28022/95

    SINGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28021/95

    KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 33715/96

    DRAYER v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EKMR, 10.02.1993 - 16714/90

    KOSE v. AUSTRIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht