Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-4 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 5-1 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA v. PORTUGAL

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Not necessary to examine Art. 5-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.03.2000 - 44872/98
• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 44872/98
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

  MUSIAL c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  According to the Court's case-law, a person detained in such conditions is entitled under Article 5 § 4 to take proceedings at reasonable intervals before a court to put in issue the "lawfulness" - within the meaning of the Convention - of his or her detention, inasmuch as the reasons initially warranting confinement may cease to exist (see Musial v. Poland [GC], no. 24557/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  It appears from the file, however, that the applicant must have incurred some costs for instructing his lawyer to submit the case to the Court (see, in this connection, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 210, ECHR 2000-IV, and Demiray v. Turkey, no. 27308/95, § 70, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 21.11.2000 - 27308/95

  DEMIRAY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  It appears from the file, however, that the applicant must have incurred some costs for instructing his lawyer to submit the case to the Court (see, in this connection, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 210, ECHR 2000-IV, and Demiray v. Turkey, no. 27308/95, § 70, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  Special procedural safeguards may prove called for in order to protect the interests of persons who, on account of their mental disabilities, are not fully capable of acting for themselves (see Megyeri v. Germany, judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, pp. 11-12, § 22).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  The latter condition implies not only that the relevant courts must decide "speedily", but also that their decisions must follow at reasonable intervals (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75).

• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 8300/06

  RUIZ RIVERA v. SWITZERLAND

  In the case of Herz v. Germany (no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003), for example, the Court found that a psychiatric assessment dating back a year and a half was not sufficient by itself to justify deprivation of liberty (see also, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I, and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  Consequently, the present case clearly differs from that of Dörr v. Germany ((dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013), which concerned an applicant who had been convicted by a court and given a sentence combined with Sicherungsverwahrung (preventive detention), and which was decided on the basis of complaints under Article 5 § 1. The Dörr precedent does not apply in the present case, whatever one may think of the institution of Sicherungsverwahrung or of case-law which may be in conflict with the Dörr decision (see Herz v. Germany, no. 44672/98, § 50, 12 June 2003; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 49, ECHR 2002-I; and H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, § 114, 19 September 2013).

  In that connection, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 4 based on the judgment in Herz v. Germany (no. 44672/98, 12 June 2003) and - mutatis mutandis - on the judgment in Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal (no. 44872/98, 26 February 2002, see paragraph 60).

• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE

  The Court considers that, in the circumstances of this particular case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the applicant should be awarded the sum of EUR 12, 000 (see, for example, Witold Litwa, cited above, § 85; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 66, ECHR 2002-I; and Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, § 74, 11 May 2004).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Similarly, as regards detention of persons of unsound mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) ordered at the close of criminal proceedings during which the charges against them had been proved but they had been found not criminally responsible for their actions due to a mental illness, intervals between reviews of less than a year have usually been considered acceptable, while longer intervals have not been considered "reasonable" for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Herczegfalvy, cited above, § 77; Silva Rocha v. Portugal, 15 November 1996, § 31, Reports 1996-V; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, §§ 45 - 51, ECHR 2002-I; and compare with Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal (no. 2), no. 15996/02, §§ 27-33, 20 December 2005).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 59152/08

  N. c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour observe d'abord que la procédure instituée par la législation roumaine pertinente, entrée en vigueur en septembre 2006 (paragraphes 90-91 ci-dessus), s'analyse en un contrôle judiciaire périodique et automatique des motifs de l'internement similaire à celui qui était en cause dans d'autres affaires examinées auparavant par la Cour (Herczegfalvy, précité, §§ 74-78, et Magalhães Pereira c. Portugal, no 44872/98, §§ 40-51, CEDH 2002-I).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  BAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  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, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 56, ECHR 2002-I, and Stanev, cited above, § 171; see also, in the context of detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, albeit concerning detention with a view to extradition, Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 283, 19 February 2013).