Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Grubic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 5384/11

  The standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention thus requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 54, Reports 1998-VII, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 5384/11

  This primarily requires any detention to have a legal basis in domestic law but also relates to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of law, a concept inherent in all the Articles of the Convention (see Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 63, ECHR 2002-IV and Kafkaris, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 5384/11

  "Quality of the law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports 1996-III; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 5384/11

  The Court observes that as from the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance, the defendant is detained "after conviction by a competent court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 24 to 26, 16 January 2007; B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, §§ 36-39, Series A no. 175; and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, 2009).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 5384/11

  Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, among many other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33, Saadi, § 67 and Mooren, § 72, cited above).

• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 40132/16

  SALMANOV v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court recalls that it is well-established case-law under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that any deprivation of liberty must, in addition to falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f), be "lawful", that is in compliance with national law, and should also be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, for example, Grubic v. Croatia, no. 5384/11, §§ 36-38, 30 October 2012).