Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration

  EMRK Art. 34, EMRK Art. 5 Abs. 1 Bst. f, EMRK Art. 5 Abs. 2, EMRK Art. 5 Abs. 4
  Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, Freiheitsentziehung, Willkür, Haftdauer, Haftgründe, Algerien

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOULED MASSOUD v. MALTA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08

  Quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty, it must be sufficiently accessible and precise in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 55, ECHR 2001-II, citing Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996-III).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  The Court's assessment General principles 134. The Court has made it clear that the Article 5 requirement that "everyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court" does not impose a uniform, unvarying standard to be applied irrespective of the context, facts and circumstances (see Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 40, 27 July 2010).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  In any event, even where an applicant may have been kept in detention for an indeterminate period, what is decisive for the Court's analysis is the necessity of procedural safeguards (such as an effective remedy by which to contest the lawfulness and length of his detention) (ibid., § 85; Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 71, 27 July 2010; and, mutatis mutandis, A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus, cited above, § 190).
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 40503/17

  M.K. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The Government submitted that in this respect the present cases were different from a number of previous cases examined by the Court (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, 15 December 2016; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, ECHR 2012; Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, 27 July 2010; Suso Musa v. Malta, no. 42337/12, 23 July 2013; and Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, ECHR 2007-II) in which the applicants were under the territorial jurisdiction of the Contracting States for an extended amount of time and - particularly in cases concerning irregular migration by sea - were at imminent risk of losing their life or health if returned to the sea or the maritime border.

 
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 62116/12

  Aufnahmebedingungen, Ungarn, Inhaftierung, Recht auf Freiheit, Abschiebung, …

  To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the ground of detention relied on by the Government; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate, bearing in mind that "the measure is applicable not to those who have committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own country"; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Saadi, cited above § 74; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009; and Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 62, 27 July 2010).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  See also Mathloom v Greece (Application No 48883/07) (unreported) given 24 April 2012 and Massoud v Malta (Application No 24340/08) (unreported) given 27 July 2010 to much the same effect.

  Factors relevant to this assessment of the "quality of law" - which are referred to in some cases as "safeguards against arbitrariness" - will include the existence of clear legal provisions for ordering detention, for extending detention, and for setting time-limits for detention (Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 135 and Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 99, 10 June 2010); and the existence of an effective remedy by which the applicant can contest the "lawfulness" and "length" of his continuing detention (Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 71, 27 July 2010).

• VG Oldenburg, 23.07.2014 - 12 B 1217/14

  Haft; Malta; systemische Mängel; Überstellung

  Die genannten NGOs berichteten weiterhin, dass es zwar entsprechende gesetzliche und administrative Regelungen gebe (vgl. die Darstellungen bei UNHCR vom 18. September 2013, sowie EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Juli 2010, Massoud gegen Malta, No. 24340/08 und vom 23. Juli 2013, Musa gegen Malta, No. 42337/12, beide HUDOC), diese den Inhaftierten jedoch keine effektiven und zügig durchgeführten Verfahren zur Überprüfung der Gesetzmäßigkeit und Angemessenheit der Haft(anordnungen) böten.
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  The notion of "lawfulness" under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention has the same meaning as in Article 5 § 1, so that the arrested or detained person is entitled to a review of the "lawfulness" of his detention not only in the light of the requirements of domestic law, but also of the Convention, the general principles embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 § 1 (see E. v. Norway, 29 August 1990, § 50, Series A no. 181 and Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 39, 27 July 2010).
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 56796/13

  ABDI MAHAMUD v. MALTA

  The applicant relied on the Court's findings in Louled Massoud v. Malta (no. 24340/08, 27 July 2010), whereby the Court held that the available remedies in the Maltese domestic system were ineffective and insufficient for the purposes of Article 5 § 4. In respect of Article 25 A (6) of the Immigration Act, she added that as a rule the Board granted bail in connection with removal orders, but has done so at least once in connection with a challenge as to the lawfulness of detention under regulation 11(10) mentioned above at paragraph 29. Nevertheless, bail could only be granted against a financial deposit (usually around 1, 000 euros (EUR)) as well as a third-party guarantee showing that the applicant will have accommodation and subsistence, conditions which were unlikely to be fulfilled by immigrants arriving by boat (as opposed to those overstaying visas).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 30186/19

  KARIMI c. ROUMANIE

  Enfin, la Cour relève que, compte tenu les démarches constantes des autorités roumaines, la durée totale de la détention du requérant - huit mois environ - n'a pas été excessive et que l'intéressé a ensuite été libéré (voir, pour comparer, Louled Massoud c. Malte, no 24340/08, § 66, 27 juillet 2010, et Raza c. Bulgarie, no 31465/08, § 73, 11 février 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2020 - 42779/12

  NUR AHMED AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that a failure to examine appeals before release indicates that the relevant proceedings are not conducted "speedily" and are deprived, on that account, of practical effectiveness (see, for example, Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 44, 27 July 2010; Frasik v. Poland, no. 22933/02, § 66, ECHR 2010 (extracts); S.T.S. v. the Netherlands, no. 277/05, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2011; and Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, §§ 120-24, 23 July 2013).
• EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 9356/11

  S.C. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 62676/16

  ABOYA BOA JEAN v. MALTA
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 77647/11

  NUR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 59727/13

  AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41903/10

  A.H. AND J.K. v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41858/10

  K.F. v. CYPRUS
• VG Oldenburg, 26.08.2011 - 3 B 1229/11

  Dublin II-VO, Dublinverfahren, vorläufiger Rechtsschutz, Malta, einstweilige …
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 38044/12

  CHYLINSKI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS