Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,30608) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 24. As regards the applicant's remaining complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to the facts of the case and the findings under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references). - EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03
McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17
The question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, mutatis mutandis, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006-X) and that the arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention. - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 45852/17
The question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, mutatis mutandis, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-45, ECHR 2006-X) and that the arguments for and against release must not be "general and abstract" (see, for example, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 173, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)), but contain references to the specific facts and the applicant's personal circumstances justifying his detention.