Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARIS v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01 and 60226/00, ECHR 2002 IX).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  Furthermore, the Court finds it appropriate to point out that the remedies relied on by the Government in the present case are remedies before civil courts, which undoubtedly have no jurisdiction to order release or otherwise directly remedy the impugned state of affairs (see Pavletic v. Slovakia, no. 39359/98, §§ 69 and 72, 22 June 2004 and also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  These remedies are by definition aimed at obtaining compensation and might possibly be of relevance under paragraph 5 of Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319 A, p. 17, § 44 and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241 A, p. 34, § 79) which, however, the applicant did not invoke.
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  According to the Court's case-law concerning Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, a periodic judicial review must, if it is to satisfy the requirements of those provisions, comply with both the substantive and the procedural rules of the national legislation and moreover be conducted in conformity with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual against arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75).

• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  As to the question of how civil courts might interfere with the jurisdiction of other authorities established under special legislation (see, mutatis mutandis, Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007; Michalko v. Slovakia, no. 35377/05, § 88, 21 December 2010; and Aydemir v. Slovakia, no. 44153/06, § 48, 8 February 2011, all with further references), the Court notes yet again the position established by the administrative tribunals and endorsed by the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 29, 45 and 62 above) - namely that the execution of prison sentences constituted a continuation and an integral part of the penal procedure, the regulation of which fell within the same area of law.
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01

  KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA

  The Court does not need to resolve the question whether a claim for compensation may be considered as an effective remedy in respect of a deprivation of liberty carried out in breach of Article 5 of the Convention (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, § 36 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, § 63, Reports 1998-VII; Tám v. Slovakia, no. 50213/99, §§ 44-53, 22 June 2004; Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, §§ 73-79, 26 July 2007; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 39, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), which imply that it may be; Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.), no. 27312/95, 20 April 1999, which says that it is, after the impugned detention has ended; and Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B; YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI; and Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007, which say that it is not, even after the individual concerned has been released).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 74012/01

  GAVRIL YOSIFOV v. BULGARIA

  16419/90 and 16426/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991, DR 71, p. 253, and judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; and, more recently, Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007), under Article 5 § 4 about the failure of a national court to determine speedily an application for release (see Navarra v. France, no. 13190/87, Commission decision of 1 March 1991, DR 69, p. 168, and judgment of 23 November 1993, § 24, Series A no. 273-B), and under Article 5 § 1 about detention effected in violation of some of its requirements, such as to be ordered by a "competent court" or to be based on a "reasonable suspicion" (see Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, no. 12747/87, Commission decision of 12 December 1989, DR 64, p. 113; and Wloch v. Poland (dec.), no. 27785/95, decision of 30 March 2000 and § 90 of the judgment, ECHR 2000-XI).