Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEST v. HUNGARY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 5380/12
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 45597/09

  PACI c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  Unless the interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Thimothawes, cited above, § 71, and Paci v. Belgium, no. 45597/09, § 73, 17 April 2018), the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015; see also, specifically in respect of EU law, Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 54, 20 September 2011, and Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 110, 3 October 2014).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 198, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 92, 15 December 2016).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 39061/11

  THIMOTHAWES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  Those norms may clearly also stem from European Union law (see Thimothawes v. Belgium, no. 39061/11, § 70, 4 April 2017).

 
• EuGH, 28.06.2012 - C-192/12

  West

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  On 28 June 2012 the Court of Justice of the European Union ("the CJEU") adopted a judgment concerning the applicant's case (C-192/12 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2012:404), in which it held, among other things:.
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  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 but also, where appropriate, to other applicable legal norms, including those which have their source in international law (see Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 79, ECHR 2010, and Kholmurodov v. Russia, no. 58923/14, § 84, 1 March 2016).
• EuGH, 25.01.2017 - C-640/15

  Die für die Vollziehung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls zuständigen Behörden …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  In the case of Vilkas (C-640/15), the CJEU adopted a judgment on 25 January 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:39) containing the following passages:[2].
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 41138/05

  MONEDERO ANGORA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  In particular, the procedure for executing a European arrest warrant replaces the standard extradition procedure between Member States of the European Union and pursues the same aim, namely the surrender to the authorities of the applicant State of a person who is suspected of having committed an offence or who is trying to escape justice after being convicted by a final decision (see Monedero Angora v. Spain (dec.), no. 41138/05, 7 October 2008).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3989/07

  ULLENS DE SCHOOTEN ET REZABEK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  Unless the interpretation is arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see, for example, Thimothawes, cited above, § 71, and Paci v. Belgium, no. 45597/09, § 73, 17 April 2018), the Court's role is confined to ascertaining whether the effects of that interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015; see also, specifically in respect of EU law, Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v. Belgium, nos. 3989/07 and 38353/07, § 54, 20 September 2011, and Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 110, 3 October 2014).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  The Court notes that a period of detention is, in principle, "lawful" if it is based on a court order (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX, and Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).