Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M. v. UKRAINE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 2452/04

  The complaint was therefore lodged within six months of the moment when the continuing situation complained of ceased to exist (see, among other authorities, Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 2452/04

  The Court reiterates that the notion of deprivation of liberty comprises both an objective element, namely a person's confinement in a restricted space for a significant length of time, and a subjective element, namely the person's lack of valid consent to the confinement (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 74, ECHR 2005-V, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 4634/04

  OSYPENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 2452/04

  Detention may violate Article 5 even when the person concerned has agreed to it (see Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, § 48, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 2452/04

  The Court reiterates that an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty on the basis of unsoundness of mind unless three minimum conditions are satisfied: (i) he must reliably be shown by objective medical expertise to be of unsound mind; (ii) the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; (iii) the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33 and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, 17 January 2012).

• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  That means that it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the particular circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 III; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 46, ECHR 2000-X; Karamanof v. Greece, no. 46372/09, § 42, 26 July 2011; Stanev, cited above, § 143; M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, § 57, 19 April 2012; and Rudenko, cited above, § 103).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 29804/16

  TSYOGE FON MANTEYFEL v. UKRAINE

  While the sum awarded is lower than the awards the Court generally makes in comparable cases (see in respect of Ukraine, M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, 19 April 2012), where the Court awarded EUR 12, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of three periods of hospitalisation lasting around two to three months each), the Court observes that the applicant did not challenge the amount of the award by means of an appeal on points of law and did not provide the Court with any explanation regarding her failure to do so.
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 25820/07

  STEFAN STANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Elle rappelle à ce sujet que le consentement d'une personne à son admission dans une institution dédiée à la santé psychique pour y suivre un traitement ne peut être considéré comme valable au regard de la Convention que s'il existe des preuves suffisantes et crédibles suggérant que les capacités de consentir, ainsi que de comprendre les conséquences de cet acte, ont été établies au cours d'une procédure équitable et appropriée, et que toutes les informations nécessaires concernant le placement et le traitement envisagé ont été fournies à la personne concernée de manière adéquate (M. c. Ukraine, no 2452/04, § 77, 19 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 45797/09

  ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Thus, complaints about short periods of detention or certain kinds of non-compliance with the formalities of the domestic law in exercising detention procedures may be adequately protected by recourse to a retrospective remedy (see M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, § 84, 19 April 2012).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 2809/18

  KAGANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The above notion comprises an objective element, namely a person's confinement in a restricted space for a significant length of time, and a subjective element, namely the person's lack of valid consent to the confinement (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, §§ 71 and 74, ECHR 2005-V, 16 June 2005, and M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, § 69, 19 April 2012).