Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VENSKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 10645/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  Whilst acknowledging that the record of her provisional arrest was drawn up some four hours later, the Court nonetheless observes that that document indicated the applicant's arrest time as 3 p.m. The lack of a proper record of the applicant's arrest is therefore sufficient for the Court to hold that her confinement for that time was in breach of Article 179 of the CCP (paragraph 45 above), which provides that each investigative action must be documented, and contrary to the requirements implicit in Article 5 of the Convention for the proper recording of deprivations of liberty (see, mutatis mutandis, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV; Menesheva, cited above, §§ 87-89; and Belousov, cited above, § 73).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  The absence of a record of such details as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  The absence of a record of such details as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008).

• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  The absence of a record of such details as the date, time and location of detention, the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it must be seen as incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 78, 25 October 2005; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-III; and Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 72, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 30671/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  Yet the Court is reluctant to find that this fact, in itself, is sufficiently conclusive to hold that no legal procedure was envisaged for bringing proceedings in order to seek compensation for the deprivation of liberty found by the Strasbourg Court to be in breach of one of the other paragraphs of Article 5 (see, for the opposite conclusion, Klishyn v. Ukraine, no. 30671/04, §§ 97 and 98, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  According to the Court's case-law, in order to determine whether there has been a deprivation of liberty, the starting-point must be the specific situation of the individual concerned, and account must be taken of a whole range of factors arising in a particular case, such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 92, Series A no. 39).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  The Court must look beyond the appearances and concentrate on the realities of the situation complained of (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 4634/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  Detention may violate Article 5 even though the person concerned has agreed to it (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12; Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, § 48, 9 November 2010).
• EKMR, 10.04.1995 - 24722/94

  GUENAT contre la SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 10645/08

  Lastly, the Court recalls that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention may also apply to deprivation of liberty of a very short duration (see, for instance, Guenat v. Switzerland, no. 24722/94, Commission decision of 10 April 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR) 81, p. 134; and, more recently, Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 93, 23 February 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen