Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSVÁTHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  This means, amongst other things, that the Court must take realistic account not only of the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the Contracting Party concerned but also of the general legal and political context in which they operate as well as the personal circumstances of the applicants (see Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 58-59, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 27426/95

  G.B. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.

 
• EGMR, 30.11.2000 - 28256/95

  M.B. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 15684/05

  Regard being had to the Court's case-law on the subject (see, for example, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 107; M.B. v. Switzerland, no. 28256/95, § 31, 30 November 2000; G.B. v. Switzerland, no. 27426/95, § 27, 30 November 2000; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 85, ECHR 2000-XII; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 120, 4 October 2005; Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, §§ 44-45, 9 January 2003; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, § 51, Reports 1997-VII; and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 77), the foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of a speedy determination of the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody.

• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 72936/14

  I.P. c. BULGARIE

  La Cour a déjà appliqué ce principe dans des affaires où étaient en cause la régularité de la détention en droit interne au regard de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention (Gavril Yossifov, précité, § 43, et Rahmani et Dineva, précité, §§ 67-71), la justification d'une détention prolongée au regard de l'article 5 § 3 (Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 89, 9 juillet 2013, et Demir c. Turquie (déc.), no 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 octobre 2012) ou le droit à un examen « à bref délai'du recours judiciaire concernant la légalité de la détention, garanti par l'article 5 § 4 (Knebl c. République tchèque, no 20157/05, §§ 105-106, 28 octobre 2010, Osváthová c. Slovaquie, no 15684/05, §§ 57-59, 21 décembre 2010, et Delijorgji, précité, § 81).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14

  KOLEV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour a déjà appliqué ce principe dans des affaires où étaient en cause la régularité de la détention en droit interne au regard de l'article 5 § 1 (Gavril Yossifov, § 43, et Rahmani et Dineva, §§ 67-71, précités), la justification d'une détention prolongée au regard de l'article 5 § 3 (Demir c. Turquie (déc.), no 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 octobre 2012, Gürcegiz c. Turquie, no 11045/07, §§ 22-25, 15 novembre 2012, et Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 89, 9 juillet 2013) ou le droit à un examen « à bref délai'du recours judiciaire concernant la légalité de la détention, tel que garanti par l'article 5 § 4 (Knebl c. République tchèque, no 20157/05, §§ 105-106, 28 octobre 2010, Osváthová c. Slovaquie, no 15684/05, §§ 57-59, 21 décembre 2010, et Delijorgji c. Albanie, no 6858/11, § 81, 28 avril 2015).
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71545/11

  IVAN TODOROV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour a déjà appliqué ce principe dans des affaires où étaient en cause la régularité de la détention en droit interne au regard de l'article 5 § 1 (Gavril Yossifov, précité § 43, et Rahmani et Dineva, précité, §§ 67-71), la justification d'une détention prolongée au regard de l'article 5 § 3 (Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 89, 9 juillet 2013, et Demir c. Turquie (déc.), no 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 octobre 2012) ou le droit à un examen « à bref délai'du recours judiciaire concernant la légalité de la détention, tel que garanti par l'article 5 § 4 (Knebl c. République tchèque, no 20157/05, §§ 105-106, 28 octobre 2010, Osváthová c. Slovaquie, no 15684/05, §§ 57-59, 21 décembre 2010, et Delijorgji, précité, § 81).
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 15259/11

  MASLÁK c. SLOVAQUIE

  The Court summarised its case-law relevant to the issue at hand for example in the cases of Mooren v. Germany [GC] (no. 11364/03, § 106, ECHR 2009-...); Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 128, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia (no. 45426/06, § 62, 30 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, § 167, 21 December 2010); and Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, § 69, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 11037/12

  MASLÁK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court summarised its case-law relevant to the issue at hand for example in the cases of Mooren v. Germany [GC] (no. 11364/03, § 106, ECHR 2009-...); Stetiar and Sutek v. Slovakia (nos. 20271/06 and 17517/07, § 128, 23 November 2010; Gál v. Slovakia (no. 45426/06, § 62, 30 November 2010); Michalko v. Slovakia (no. 35377/05, § 167, 21 December 2010); and Osváthová v. Slovakia (no. 15684/05, § 69, 21 December 2010).