Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  L.M. v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  L.M. v. Slovenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  L.M. v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 32863/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  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, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009).

  In the absence of such a time-limit, the applicant was confined without a valid substantive legal basis or clear rules governing the maximum duration of this situation, which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 62, ECHR 2000-IX).

• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  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, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009).

  In the absence of such a time-limit, the applicant was confined without a valid substantive legal basis or clear rules governing the maximum duration of this situation, which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III; and Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 62, ECHR 2000-IX).

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  Britische DNA-Datenbanken verstoßen gegen die Europäische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  According to the Court's case-law, the wording "in accordance with the law" requires the impugned measure both to have some basis in domestic law and to be compatible with the rule of law, which is expressly mentioned in the preamble to the Convention and inherent in the object and purpose of Article 8. The law must thus be adequately accessible and foreseeable, that is, formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual - if need be with appropriate advice - to regulate his conduct (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 95, 4 December 2008).

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  Given that the notion of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 also comprises an additional subjective element, namely that a person has not validly consented to the confinement in question (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 74, ECHR 2005-V), it remains to be ascertained whether the applicant did in fact consent - at least by implication - to her stay in the open ward of the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital.
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  Lastly, the Court has outlined three minimum conditions for the lawful detention of an individual on the basis of unsoundness of mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention: he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1997, § 60, Reports 1997-VII; and, more recently, Stanev, cited above, § 145).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  The general principles concerning the circumstances constituting a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and therefore attracting the protection of this provision are set out in Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 115-120, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  In the context of the present case, this interval of four days must be regarded as falling outside the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness for the purposes of Article 5 § 2 (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 416, ECHR 2005-III, and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  Moreover, being a remedy of purely compensatory nature, a civil action for damages could not have secured the applicant's release if her confinement was unlawful, as required by Article 5 § 4 (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 February 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 114, 23 July 2013 and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Verstoß Maltas gegen Art. 3 EMRK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  Moreover, being a remedy of purely compensatory nature, a civil action for damages could not have secured the applicant's release if her confinement was unlawful, as required by Article 5 § 4 (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 February 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 114, 23 July 2013 and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  The Court has already dismissed a similar Government's objection in the context of prison conditions, considering that the absence of any case-law indicated the uncertainty of requests for the termination of an infringement of personality rights in practice (see Strucl and others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 126-127, 20 October 2011, and Mandic and Jovic v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 113-114, 20 October 2011, and the references cited therein).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 28973/11

  Z.H. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 24086/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  MIGON v. POLAND
• EKMR, 14.05.1977 - 6998/75

  X c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 01.03.2006 - 56581/00

  SEJDOVIC c. ITALIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen