Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00

It appears that there was no overcrowding problem that may give rise an issue under Article 3 (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00

To the extent that the applicant complained under Article 13 that he did not have an effective remedy for his complaints under Article 3, the Court recalls that Article 13 only applies where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00

The court invited to rule on an action for damages caused by unlawful detention examines the matter after the events and therefore does not have jurisdiction to order release if the detention is unlawful, as Article 5 § 4 requires it should (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 February 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61).

Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.2004 - 55669/00

To the extent that the applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about having been refused proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention after 24 July 1999, the Court notes that it will examine the same complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which is a lex specialis in regard to Article 13 of the Convention in this respect (see Kambangu v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 59619/00, 17 June 2004) and the less strict requirements of Article 13 can be considered absorbed by the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 27, § 60).