Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.D. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (victim) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (abuse of the right of petition) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  D. D. gegen Litauen

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  D.D. v. Lithuania

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 13469/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Thus, for example, they can make appropriate procedural arrangements in order to secure the good administration of justice, protection of the health of the person concerned, and so forth (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 68, ECHR 2008).

  However, this does not necessarily mean that the applicant was de facto unable to understand her situation (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 108, ECHR 2008).

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 30951/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  The Court lastly observes, and it has not been disputed by the applicant, that in situations such as hers the domestic law did not provide that placement in a social care institution would be decided by a court (see, by converse implication, Gorobet v. Moldova, no. 30951/10, § 40, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Respect for private life must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings (see Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B).

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Accordingly, the specific situation in the present case is that the applicant is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 73, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  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; and Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 41, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  It also reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are less strict than, and are here absorbed by, those of Article 6 (see, among many authorities, Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 110, Series A no. 168).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  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; and Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 41, Series A no. 93).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Special procedural safeguards may prove called for in order to protect the interests of persons who, on account of their mental disabilities, are not fully capable of acting for themselves (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A; also see Stanev, cited above, § 171).
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  Having regard to the fact that the Kedainiai Home had to take care of adults suffering from mental health problems, it followed that the limited restrictions on the applicant had corresponded to the nature of the facility and had been no more than normal requirements (Nielsen v. Denmark, 28 November 1988, § 72, Series A no. 144).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98
• EGMR, 04.11.2003 - 47244/99

  NOVOTKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 8819/79

  X. c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

  M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 46311/99
• EKMR, 04.05.1987 - 12040/86

  M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen