Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAVIK AND VAIK v. ESTONIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HAVIK v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33492/96

  JABLONSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  The question of whether or not a detainee's condition is compatible with his continued detention should primarily be determined by the national courts, and as the Court has held in the context of Article 3 of the Convention, in general, those courts are not obliged to release persons on health grounds or place them in a civilian hospital to enable them to receive a particular kind of medical treatment (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 93, ECHR 2000-XI, and Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 82, 21 December 2000).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  The Court reiterates that incomplete and therefore misleading information may indeed amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and a sufficient explanation is not given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; see also Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 75381/10

  KOMATINOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  The Court reiterates that incomplete and therefore misleading information may indeed amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information in question concerns the very core of the case and a sufficient explanation is not given for the failure to disclose that information (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; see also Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008, and Komatinovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 75381/10, 29 January 2013).

 
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 8685/15

  V.S. v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  At the same time, relying on the information provided by the Government and its own case-law (see Jatsõ?.õn v. Estonia, no. 27603/15, 30 October 2018, and the domestic case-law cited therein; Nikitin and Others v. Estonia, nos. 23226/16 and 6 others, 29 January 2019, and the domestic case-law cited therein; and V.S. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 8685/15, ECHR 10 October 2018), the Court finds that adequate remedies existed within the domestic legal system.
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 55844/12

  STVRTECKÝ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  The general principles regarding the application of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention have been set out in the judgments of Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 102, ECHR 2016) and Merabishvili v. Georgia ([GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 222 and 225, 28 November 2017); for a recent application of those principles in a case similar to the instant one, see Stvrtecký v. Slovakia (no. 55844/12, 5 June 2018).
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 27603/15

  JATSÕSÕN v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 9044/17

  At the same time, relying on the information provided by the Government and its own case-law (see Jatsõ?.õn v. Estonia, no. 27603/15, 30 October 2018, and the domestic case-law cited therein; Nikitin and Others v. Estonia, nos. 23226/16 and 6 others, 29 January 2019, and the domestic case-law cited therein; and V.S. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 8685/15, ECHR 10 October 2018), the Court finds that adequate remedies existed within the domestic legal system.

• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 45087/19

  PODOLINSKI AND KAER v. ESTONIA

  9044/17 and 48545/17, 12 May 2020).