Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CALOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Hacker darf von Lettland an USA ausgeliefert werden

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Calovskis v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CALOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13
• EGMR, 05.07.2017 - 22205/13

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  However, the Court has previously held that a prosecutor's decision may well be justified on the basis of the information at his disposal, but such a decision cannot be qualified as a decision taken by a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 64, Series A no. 33).

  The implications for the Court's review of Convention compliance that follow from these two linked expressions in Article 5§ 1, implications that were first stated in essence as early as 1979 in the case of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, §§ 39-41, 45-46, are summarised in paragraphs 155-158, 181 and 182 of the judgment in the present case ("the present judgment") by reference to more recent case-law.

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  The fact that the applicant was released on 10 October 2013 on the prosecutor's order does not render his complaint under this provision devoid of purpose, bearing in mind that he was detained for ten months (see, mutatis mutandis, M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 164, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  An individual constitutional complaint can only be lodged against a legal provision where an individual considers that the provision in question infringes his or her fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution (see Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 73, 2 November 2010, and Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06

  LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  An individual constitutional complaint can only be lodged against a legal provision where an individual considers that the provision in question infringes his or her fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution (see Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37586/06, § 73, 2 November 2010, and Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 36117/02, ECHR 2003-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  Some form of adversarial proceedings is required in cases concerning detention with a view to extradition (see Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, § 56, 5 June 2012, and Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 51, Series A no. 107).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III; K. v. Russia, cited above, § 82; and Niyazov, cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  The Court has no reason not to accept that the ruling of the investigating judge, rendered on 6 December 2012, on the applicant's detention with a view to extradition corresponded to a decision taken by a "court" for the purposes of Article 5 § 4. At the same time, the judicial supervision required by Article 5 § 4 incorporated in the initial decision does not purport to deal with an ensuing period of detention in which new issues affecting the lawfulness of the detention might arise (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 56, Series A no. 114).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  Since the nature of the Contracting States" responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215, and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 76, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  Those reports concerned prisoners detained by the United States authorities outside the national territory, notably in Guantánamo Bay (Cuba), Bagram (Afghanistan) and some other third countries (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, § 66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 130/10

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  Nevertheless, as held by the Court, an Article 3 issue would arise in respect of a mandatory life sentence without parole and a discretionary life sentence if it could be shown that the applicant's imprisonment could no longer be justified on any legitimate penological grounds and that the sentence was irreducible de facto and de jure (see Aswat, cited above, § 35, and, mutatis mutandis, Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, §§ 119 et seq., ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 43759/10

  WILLCOX AND HURFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.07.2015 - C-237/15

  Lanigan

  91 - Vgl. EGMR, Calovskis/Lettland, 24. Juli 2014, Nr. 22205/13, § 217.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.10.2016 - C-640/15

  Vilkas

  25 - Urteil des EGMR vom 24. Juli 2014, Calovskis/Lettland (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002220513, Rn. 182).