Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention Take proceedings) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.H. v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06
• EGMR, 01.04.2015 - 11577/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  In the recent case of Storck v. Germany (Application No 61603/00), 16 June 2005, there was in principle a procedure available to protect the patient's interests, but the applicant had been unable to secure outside help during her confinement in a private clinic to enable her to institute such proceedings, so it was "questionable whether there had been sufficient safeguards to guarantee the applicant's effective access to court": see para 118. This was not because of lack of capacity but because of the lack of practical machinery for contacting the court.

  The applicant relied on Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-V as authority for the proposition that special procedural safeguards might be necessary to protect the interests of persons who were not capable of acting for themselves on account of their mental disabilities.

• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 58973/00

  RAKEVICH CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 8 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  Indeed, in Rakevich v. Russia (Application No 58973/00), 28 October 2003, it was held that even the judicial review of every admission on the initiative of the detaining authorities is not enough if the patient does not herself have the direct right to apply for her release.

  In fact, the Court has held that it would be a contravention of Article 5 § 4 for the State to substitute a system of automatic appeals for one which the applicant could himself initiate (Rakevich v. Russia, no. 58973/00, § 39, 28 October 2003 and Gorshkov v. Ukraine, cited above, § 39).

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  (b) following the expiry of any such initial period of emergency detention, a person thereafter detained for an indefinite or lengthy period is in principle entitled, at any rate where there is no automatic periodic review of a judicial character, to take proceedings "at reasonable intervals" before a court to put in issue the "lawfulness" - within the meaning of the Convention - of his detention (Winterwerp, cited above, § 55 and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012);.

• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  In this regard, the Government submitted that a period of twenty-eight days was neither "indefinite nor lengthy" (Winterwerp, cited above, § 42; X v. the United Kingdom, cited above, §§ 57 - 58; and Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  Nevertheless, Article 5 § 4 guarantees a remedy that must be accessible to the person concerned and must afford the possibility of reviewing compliance with the conditions to be satisfied if the detention of a person of unsound mind is to be regarded as "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 52, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  It is not the Court's task to inquire into what would be the most appropriate system in the sphere under examination (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 123, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  The reviewing "court" must not have merely advisory functions but must have the competence to "decide" the "lawfulness" of the detention and to order release if the detention is unlawful (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 200, Series A no. 25; Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 130, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 202, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  The Convention does not oblige applicants, after unsuccessfully attempting the obvious remedy at their disposal, to attempt all other conceivable remedies provided for under national law (see, mutatis mutandis, Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  The review should, however, be wide enough to bear on those conditions which are essential for the "lawful" detention of a person according to Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 55; for more recent authorities, see also X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, §§ 148 - 149, ECHR 2012 (extracts) and E. v. Norway, 29 August 1990, § 50, Series A no. 181-A).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 11577/06

  In respect of the third declaration sought - that section 29(4) of the 1983 Act was incompatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, insofar as it authorised the indefinite detention of a patient admitted under section 2 of the Act where an application had been made to displace the patient's nearest relative under section 29(1) for the purposes of making a guardianship application - the trial judge found the essence of the applicant's complaint was that the indefinite detention of an individual for the purpose of making a guardianship application was not consonant with the purpose of Article 5 § 1(e), namely "the lawful detention...of persons of unsound mind." He went on to find that detention in such circumstances would only arise after a responsible medical officer had made a "barring order" under section 25 of the Act preventing discharge and such an order would only be made when, in the terms of section 25, a patient was "likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to himself." Thus the second criteria for detention laid down in Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, § 73 (that "the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement") was fulfilled.
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 67531/01

  GORSHKOV v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen