Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28505/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,42354) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28505/95
- EGMR, 28.03.2002 - 28505/95
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28505/95
The Court reiterates that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 24 June 1982, p. 30, § 54, the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39, and the YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42). - EGMR, 29.03.1990 - 11454/85
KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28505/95
This provision is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by Article 5: by virtue of paragraph 2 any person arrested must be told, in simple, non-technical language that he can understand, the essential legal and factual grounds for his arrest, so as to be able, if he sees fit, to apply to a court to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with paragraph 4 (see, the van der Leer judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 170, p. 13, § 28 and the above mentioned Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment, § 40). - EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90
YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 28505/95
The Court reiterates that the existence of a remedy must be sufficiently certain, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of Article 5 (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 24 June 1982, p. 30, § 54, the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 19, § 39, and the YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p. 17, § 42).