Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 5-3 Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  T.W. c. MALTE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire jointe au fond Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 5-3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 5-4 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens ...

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 25644/94
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9626/81

  DUINHOF AND DUIJF v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  Mais le requérant a pu éprouver, faute de cette garantie, un certain tort moral que ne compense pas entièrement le constat de manquement (arrêt Duinhof et Duijf c. Pays-Bas du 22 mai 1984, série A n° 79, p. 19, § 45).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  Il apparaît que c'est en 1975, dans l'affaire Golder c. Royaume-Uni (arrêt du 21 février 1975, série A n° 18), que la Cour a employé pour la première fois cette regrettable formule.
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14838/89

  A. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  De surcroît, un requérant qui a utilisé une voie de droit apparemment effective et suffisante ne saurait se voir reprocher de ne pas avoir essayé d'en utiliser d'autres qui étaient disponibles mais ne présentaient guère plus de chances de succès (voir, mutatis mutandis, l'arrêt A. c. France du 23 novembre 1993, série A n° 277-B, p. 48, § 32).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  Les premiers mots de l'article 5 § 3 ne se contentent pas de l'accès du détenu à une autorité judiciaire ; ils visent à imposer au magistrat devant lequel la personne arrêtée comparaît l'obligation d'examiner les circonstances militant pour ou contre la détention, de se prononcer selon des critères juridiques sur l'existence de raisons la justifiant et, en leur absence, d'ordonner l'élargissement (arrêt De Jong, Baljet et Van den Brink c. Pays-Bas du 22 mai 1984, série A n° 77, pp. 21-24, §§ 44, 47 et 51).

• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 49, 29 April 1999).

  More recently, this has been expressed by saying that "[i]n other words, Article 5 § 3 requires the judicial officer to consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea, cited above, § 231 in fine), that is, "to consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/99, § 47, ECHR 1999-III).

  It has stated that the judicial officer must review "the circumstances militating for or against detention" (see Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 31, Series A no. 34); "consider the merits of the detention" (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III); and, in a recent judgment, "consider whether detention is justified" (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 231, ECHR 2003-VI).

• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 60908/11

  BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  There is no requirement to use another remedy which has essentially the same objective (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13

  PAJIC v. CROATIA

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 23755/07

  BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In other words Article 5 § 3 requires the judicial officer to consider the merits of the detention (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 41, 29 April 1999; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III; and McKay, cited above, § 35).
• EGMR, 09.02.2017 - 67259/14

  SELMANI AND OTHERS v.

  The Court reiterates that when a remedy has been pursued, the use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jasar v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 69908/01, 11 April 2006; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  He noted that, although the law had changed following the judgments in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III) and T.W. v. Malta ([GC], no. 25644/94, 29 April 1999), the Criminal Code provided for the legality of a person's arrest to be determined in its initial stages, but that procedure was not repeated during the months and years during which the person was kept in detention.
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Et ce problème n'est assurément pas nouveau (voir l'opinion en partie dissidente du juge Bonello dans T.W. c. Malte [GC], no 25644/94, 29 avril 1999, ainsi que l'opinion en partie dissidente du juge Malinverni à laquelle se sont ralliés les juges Popovic et Pinto de Albuquerque dans Abdullah Yildiz c. Turquie, no 35164/05, 26 avril 2011, et l'opinion en partie dissidente commune aux juges Spielmann, Sajó, Karaka?Ÿ et Pinto de Albuquerque dans Murray c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 10511/10, 26 avril 2016).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 36921/07

  MIROSLAW GARLICKI v. POLAND

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 49, 29 April 1999, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 31, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 04.02.2021 - 54711/15

  JURCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 38359/13

  DZINIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 11956/07

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 1)
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  POPOVSKI v.
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10

  BAJIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 48286/11

  ZUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 4479/03

  MIKOLAJOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 24408/16

  SZOLCSÁN v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 18232/11

  VAKHITOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 42065/06

  KIBERMANIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 3627/06

  GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 57693/10

  KALUCZA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 181/14

  GADD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 8283/07

  DREIBLATS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)
• EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14

  TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM