Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DROOGENBROECK c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

  Art. 41 MRK
  Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Frais et dépens - demande rejetée (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM (ARTICLE 50)

  Art. 41 MRK
  Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 05.07.1979 - 7906/77
• EGMR, 23.11.1981 - 7906/77
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

  By a judgment of 24 June 1982, the latter held that when Mr. Van Droogenbroeck was detained pursuant to section 25 of the Social Protection Act of 1 July 1964, he had not been able to take any proceedings satisfying the requirements of paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4) of the Convention; on the other hand, the Court concluded that there had been no violation of paragraph 1 of Article 5 (art. 5-1) or of Article 4 (art. 4) (Series A no. 50, points 1 to 3 of the operative provisions and paragraphs 33-60 of the reasons, pp. 18-33).

  On the same day, the Chamber invited the Commission to submit, within the coming two months, its written observations, including notification of any friendly settlement at which the Government and the applicant might have arrived (Series A no. 50, p. 35).

  The fees and expenses listed by Mr. Van Damme in his note of 11 November 1981 (see paragraph 3 above) total 381, 750 BF, that is to say 186, 750 BF for the two applications, filed in Belgium under section 26 of the Act of 1 July 1964, for the release of Mr. Van Droogenbroeck from the effects of the measure affecting him (see the above-mentioned judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 11, 12-13 and 16, §§ 14, 18 and 23) and 195, 000 BF for the proceedings before the Commission and the Court.

• EGMR, 06.02.1981 - 6289/73

  AIREY c. IRLANDE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

  As the Government pointed out, there is an initial difficulty in the way of these claims, in that they were made not by the applicant - who alone has the status of "injured party" for the purposes of Article 50 (art. 50) (see the Airey judgment of 6 February 1981, Series A no. 41, p. 9, § 13) - but by a lawyer whose right to act for him the applicant has denied for more than a year (see paragraph 5 above).

  He has not claimed, or a fortiori established, that he paid or is liable to pay to his lawyers - who received from the Council of Europe a total sum of 5, 559 FF - additional fees or expenses for which he might seek reimbursement (see the above-mentioned Airey judgment, Series A no. 41, p. 9, § 13).

• EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63

  NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

  Having regard to Article 5 § 5 (art. 5-5) of the Convention - a rule of substance to be taken into account in the exercise of the competence conferred by Article 50 (art. 50) (see the Neumeister judgment of 7 May 1974, Series A no. 17, p. 13, penultimate sub-paragraph in fine) -, the Court, as was suggested by the Commission's Delegate, awards satisfaction to Mr. Van Droogenbroeck under this head; deciding on an equitable basis, it fixes the amount thereof at 20, 000 BF.

• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  As regards the claim for alleged damage suffered as a result of a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has made modest awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 29, § 65).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Ils ont dû éprouver, faute de ces garanties, un certain tort moral que ne compensent pas en entier le constat de manquement et même, pour M. van den Brink, l'imputation de la détention provisoire sur la peine (voir, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt Van Droogenbroeck du 25 avril 1983, série A no 63, p. 7, par.
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31195/96

  NIKOLOVA c. BULGARIE

  The Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has granted claims for relatively small amounts in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 29, § 65).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Somit ist im Hinblick auf die bedauerlichen Konsequenzen, die der umstrittenen Freiheitsentziehung als solcher zuzuschreiben sind, keinerlei Entschädigung fällig; der einzige Schaden, der im Hinblick auf eine gerechte Entschädigung gem. Art. 50 in Betracht gezogen werden kann, ist der durch das Fehlen eines die Anforderungen des Art. 5 Abs. 4 erfüllenden Rechtsbehelfs verursachte (s. das Urteil X. gegen Vereinigtes Königreich vom 18. Oktober 1982, Série A Nr. 55, S. 16, Ziff. 17, EGMR-E 2, 49; das Urteil Van Droogenbroeck vom 25. April 1983, Série A Nr. 63, S. 6, Ziff. 11, EGMR-E 2, 102 f.; und das Urteil Luberti vom 23. Februar 1984, Série A Nr. 75, S. 18, Ziff. 40, EGMR-E 2, 364 f.).
• EuGH, 24.05.2011 - C-52/08

  Commission v Portugal

  Durch Art. 38 des Decreto-Lei Nr. 76-A/2006 vom 29. März 2006 ( Diário da República I, Serie A, Nr. 63, vom 29. März 2006) wurden die Befugnisse zur Authentifizierung, Beglaubigung und Anerkennung von Schriftstücken auch Registerführern und -beamten, Handelskammern, Anwälten und Rechtsbeiständen eingeräumt.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.11.2018 - C-551/18

  IK (Exécution d'une peine complémentaire)

  Vgl. auch das Urteil des EGMR vom 24. Juni 1982, Van Droogenbroeck/Belgien (ECLI:CE:ECHR:1983:0425JUD000790677, §§ 39 und 40).
• EGMR, 04.07.2000 - 27915/95

  NIEDBALA v. POLAND

  As regards the claim for the alleged damage suffered as a result of violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention, the Court recalls that in certain cases which concerned violations of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 it has made modest awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 25 April 1983 (Article 50), Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13, and the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment cited above, p. 29, § 65).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9362/81

  VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The applicants must have suffered, by reason of the absence of the relevant guarantees, some non-material prejudice not wholly compensated by the findings of violation or even, in the case of Mr. Zuiderveld and Mr. Klappe, by the deduction of the period spent in custody on remand from the sentence of imprisonment ultimately imposed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 63, p. 7, § 13).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9626/81

  DUINHOF AND DUIJF v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Ils ont dû éprouver, faute de ces garanties, un certain tort moral que ne compensent pas en entier le constat de manquement et même l'imputation de la détention provisoire sur la peine finale (voir, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt Van Droogenbroeck du 25 avril 1983, série A no 63, p. 7, § 13).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 29687/96

  WESOLOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  En ce qui concerne la demande de réparation du préjudice découlant de la violation de l'article 5 §§ 3 et 4 de la Convention, la Cour rappelle que, dans certaines affaires portant sur la violation de ses dispositions, elle a alloué des sommes modestes pour dommage moral (arrêts Van Droogenbroeck c. Belgique du 25 avril 1983 (article 50), série A no 63, p. 7, § 13, et De Jong, Baljet et Van den Brink c. Pays-Bas du 22 mai 1984, série A no 77, p. 29, § 65).
• EGMR, 09.01.2001 - 25874/94

  KAWKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 38668/97

  CISZEWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 34091/96

  M.B. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 32819/96

  CABALLERO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  MIGON v. POLAND