Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  K.C. v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  K.C. v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  K.C. v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  The relevant international instruments and the comparative law are set out in the judgment of Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 72, 73 and 88-95, ECHR 2012.

  The Court notes that it had already had opportunities to examine the placement of mentally incapacitated individuals in social care homes, and found that it amounted to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 132, ECHR 2012, and D.D. v. Lithuania, no. 13469/06, § 152, 14 February 2012).

• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  Indeed, no provision was made for such an assessment under the relevant legislation (see Stanev, cited above, § 158, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 169, ECHR 2012, and paragraph 40 above and compare Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 86, 17 December 2013).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  RAUDEVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  Indeed, no provision was made for such an assessment under the relevant legislation (see Stanev, cited above, § 158, X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 169, ECHR 2012, and paragraph 40 above and compare Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 86, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 14.04.2011 - 30060/04

  Erneut Sicherungsverwahrung verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  In addition, sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds of deprivation of liberty; such a measure will not be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (ibid., § 49; see also, in particular, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008, and Jendrowiak v. Germany, no. 30060/04, § 31, 14 April 2011).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  Nonetheless, it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A; see also Stanev, cited above, § 171).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  As regards the deprivation of liberty of persons with a mental disorder, an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends on the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Shtukaturov, cited above, § 114; and Varbanov, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  It requires in addition, however, that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose of Article 5, namely, to protect individuals from arbitrariness (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 63, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  As to the second of the above conditions, the detention of a person with a mental disorder may be necessary not only where the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to cure or alleviate his condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent him, for example, from causing harm to himself or other people (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31199/12

  This is so in cases where the original detention was initially authorised by a judicial authority (see X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 52, Series A no. 46), and it is all the more true in circumstances where the applicant's placement in a care home has been instigated by a private individual, namely the applicant's guardian, and decided upon by the municipal and social care authorities without any involvement by the courts (see D.D. v. Lithuania, cited above, § 164).

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 3090/13

  T.T. v. POLAND

  The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in context of incapacitated person placed in a social care home (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, ECHR 2008, Kedzior, quoted above, and K.C. v. Poland, no. 31199/12, 25 November 2014).
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 41244/14

  WIELOGÓRSKI v. POLAND

  At the same time, however, persons deprived of their liberty in social care homes may, at any time, request a review of the lawfulness of their detention and the need to remain in the closed facility (see K.C. v. Poland, no. 31199/12, § 81, 25 November 2014).