Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,33978
EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13 (https://dejure.org/2018,33978)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23.10.2018 - 75378/13 (https://dejure.org/2018,33978)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 23. Oktober 2018 - 75378/13 (https://dejure.org/2018,33978)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,33978) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

    X v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13
    The Court has outlined three minimum conditions for the lawful detention of an individual on the basis of unsoundness of mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention: he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical evidence; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder (see X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); see also Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 2894/08

    DÖRR v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13
    The domestic courts also heard oral evidence from the head of the coercive treatment department, Dr S.K. (see paragraph 13 above), who asserted that O.T. had not recovered, denied his condition and having committed a criminal offence, and did not adhere to the administered treatment, and that the possibility of outpatient treatment in such circumstances was therefore excluded (see Dörr v. Germany (dec.), no. 2894/08, ECHR 22 January 2013, where the findings of previous expert opinions were confirmed at a hearing by a prison psychologist).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13
    This would ensure that the application was brought with the consent of the victim of the alleged breach and would avoid actio popularis applications (see Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 53, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

    STANEV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13
    The notion of "lawfulness" under paragraph 4 of Article 5 has the same meaning as in paragraph 1, so that a detained person is entitled to a review of the "lawfulness" of his detention in the light not only 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 Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 168, ECHR 2012, and M.H., cited above, § 74).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 75378/13
    The Court has outlined three minimum conditions for the lawful detention of an individual on the basis of unsoundness of mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention: he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical evidence; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder (see X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts); see also Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht