Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (7)
- Wolters Kluwer
Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. Art. 5 Abs. 3 Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (EMRK) - Bestehen der richterlichen Überprüfungspflicht nach Art. 5 Abs. 3 EMRK von Amts wegen und unabhängig von einem entsprechenden Antrag ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AQUILINA c. MALTE
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire jointe au fond Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'Art. 5-3 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AQUILINA v. MALTA - [Georgian Translation]
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
[GEO] Preliminary objection joined to merits Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AQUILINA v. MALTA - [Turkish Translation]
[TUR]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AQUILINA v. MALTA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits Preliminary objection rejected Violation of Art. 5-3 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 25642/94
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2001, 51
- NVwZ 2001, 181 (Ls.)
Wird zitiert von ... (101)
- EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12
Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …
While promptness has to be assessed according to the special features of each case (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement leaves little flexibility in interpretation; otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and a risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see, for example, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X). - EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 48939/99
ÖNERYILDIZ c. TURQUIE
However, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant, who chose to avail himself of an administrative-law remedy which appears to have been effective and capable of directly redressing the situation of which he complained, cannot be criticised for not having sought redress in the criminal courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, judgment of 26 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1359-60, § 33, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III), a remedy which, in any event, could not be used if an action for damages was already pending (see paragraph 48 above). - EGMR, 12.09.2012 - 10593/08
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf Beschwerde; Verhältnis zwischen …
Moreover, an applicant who has availed himself of a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see, for example, Aquilina v. Malta (GC), no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III, and Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-IV).
- EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 77909/01
Polizeigewahrsam und Freiheitsrecht
Wenn eine Frist von zwei Tagen nicht überschritten würde, sei diese in der Regel nicht als unangemessen anzusehen ( Aquilina ./. Malta [GC], Nr. 25642/94, Rdnr. 51, CEDH-1999-III, und Grauzinis ./. Litauen , Nr. 37975/97, Rdnr. 25, 10. Oktober 2000). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
I believe that such non-redress is inadequate in any court of justice and is negated by the clear wording of the Convention, as explained in detail in my partly dissenting opinion annexed to Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 38432/97
THOMA v. LUXEMBOURG
Moreover, it is inconsistent with the terms of the Convention, as I explained in detail in my partly dissenting opinion in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07
SITAROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE
We would like to repeat here the partly dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann and Malinverni (paragraphs 7-9) annexed to the judgment in Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009) and reiterated in the partly dissenting opinion of the same judges (paragraph 4) annexed to the judgment in Alfantakis v. Greece (no. 49330/07, 11 February 2010), which refer to the partly dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello annexed to the Grand Chamber judgment in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III).But can one really consider that the mere finding of a violation of a fundamental right can possibly afford redress (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR1999-III, dissenting opinion of Judge Bonello)?".
- EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 1920/14
PROJECT-TRADE D.O.O. v. CROATIA
The Court reiterates that if more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V (extracts); Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 56903/10
BUDIVELNO INVESTYTSIYNA GRUPA 1 v. UKRAINE
Moreover, an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999). - EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99
OKKALI c. TURQUIE
La Cour observe que cette question appelle l'examen préalable de l'allégation selon laquelle l'interprétation faite par le juge administratif du délai de prescription aurait été entachée d'arbitraire (paragraphe 56 ci-dessus), car un requérant qui a valablement utilisé une voie de droit apparemment effective et suffisante ne saurait se voir reprocher de ne pas avoir essayé d'en utiliser d'autres qui étaient disponibles mais ne présentaient guère plus de chances de succès (Aquilina c. Malte [GC], no 25642/94, § 39, CEDH 1999-III). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.08.2018 - C-310/18
Milev
- EGMR, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04
NECHIPORUK AND YONKALO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 25498/94
MESSINA c. ITALIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04
ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 13919/12
TALALIKHINA v. UKRAINE
- KG, 22.03.2002 - 25 W 218/01
Feststellung der Rechtswidrigkeit von Abschiebungshaft nach deren Erledigung
- EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 54335/14
GAFÀ v. MALTA
- EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07
BELOUSOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 142/04
BALTEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08
KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 23200/10
VESELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- KG, 24.04.2002 - 25 W 218/01
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 63362/09
RUMMI v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37576/05
S.C. RAISA M. SHIPPING S.R.L. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06
KHACHATRYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 13703/04
VASILYEV AND KOVTUN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 49375/07
EWERT c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 75109/01
VIOREL BURZO c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36777/03
IRIBARREN PINILLOS c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 2293/03
WIESER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2004 - 16870/03
VIKULOV et AUTRES contre la LETTONIE
- EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 18232/11
VAKHITOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 6759/11
GAL v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 15911/08
GEISTERFER v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 40939/05
KVASHKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 552/10
I.B. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08
JULIN v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 36794/03
SVETOSLAV HRISTOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 20429/07
LILLY FRANCE c. FRANCE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37217/03
BUJAC c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 547/02
JERONOVICS c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 4922/04
LAZOROSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 11956/07
STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 1)
- EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 17689/03
TIRON c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01
GALLIANI v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 18642/04
SMATANA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04
MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00
RADOSLAV POPOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 16308/02
PECHEUR c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 9808/02
STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 60477/12
GROBELNY v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16
MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 56367/09
J.R. v. BELGIUM
- EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 8457/05
BULGARTSVET-VELINGRAD OOD AND KOPPE v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 3627/06
GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 59577/08
LEAS v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 20271/06
STETIAR AND SUTEK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 09.09.2010 - 26428/03
MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 47719/07
ZVEZDEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 1108/02
KOLEVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02
DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 17019/02
IPEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 68294/01
KANDZHOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28299/02
ATMACA c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 2196/05
THILGEN ET THONUS c. LUXEMBOURG
- EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 38241/04
BERGMANN v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 38851/02
ABDULKADIR AKTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 10271/02
R.P. c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 13829/03
BARRET ET SIRJEAN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 12332/03
CASTELOT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 13252/02
DZELADINOV AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 53820/00
BONEVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2006 - 69875/01
SULEJMANOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 03.07.2006 - 59995/00
DABICH v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 09.02.2006 - 47927/99
AYDIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 13178/03
MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 45980/99
KOSTOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 06.01.2005 - 5379/02
NAKACH v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 45723/99
V.M. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 53037/99
IONESCU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 19437/02
VIAROPOULOS et AUTRES contre la GRECE
- EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 62740/00
MATHEUS contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.09.1999 - 29569/95
BUSCEMI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 14057/17
SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
GOBEC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 38283/04
SÜLEYMANOGLU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 17444/04
KORNEV AND KARPENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 4211/02
ERUKCU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 73957/01
VARGA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 73551/01
METMATI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 48786/09
AVENDI OOD v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 66640/12
STANA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 64367/14
TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED AND KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 38833/03
KIRPICHENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06
STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)
- EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 29761/02
TASE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 26600/02
KONOLOS c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 74785/01
NASTASE-SILIVESTRU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01
NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 2192/03
HARKMANN v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 55525/00
HADRI-VIONNET c. SUISSE
Rechtsprechung
EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 25642/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AQUILINA v. MALTA
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 17.01.1997 - 25642/94
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94