Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection partially rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection partially joined to merits (victim) Preliminary objection partially allowed (victim) No violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  He made reference in this connection to the European Court's judgment in Kadem v. Malta, (no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003).

  [9] Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta (no. 35892/97), 29 June 2000) and Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00), 9 January 2003).

• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 46 and 55, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  [3] See, for example: Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311; Mazzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV.

• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 62544/00

  PETAR VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  It remitted the case to the Court of Magistrates to be decided afresh and awarded the applicant approximately 960 euros for just satisfaction (see paragraph 24 above) for the breach of Article 5 § 4. The Court considers therefore that by acknowledging the said violation and awarding compensation of 960 euros, which is comparable to its own standards (see, for example, Petar Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 62544/00, § 42, 21 December 2006, where the Court granted 800 euros for a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, on account of the limited scope, or lack, of judicial review of the lawfulness of detention), the applicant can no longer be considered a victim in respect of the period of time up to the Constitutional Court's judgment.
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  When the detention does not, or is unlawful, the judicial officer must then have the power to release (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 40, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  The Court recalls that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention provides persons arrested or detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence with a guarantee against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  It is to be recalled that the aim of Article 5 § 4 is to ensure a "speedy" review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for instance, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 68, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  Whereas promptness is to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 25, § 52), the significance to be attached to those features can never be taken to the point of impairing the very essence of the right guaranteed by Article 5 § 3, that is to the point of effectively negativing the State's obligation to ensure a prompt release or a prompt appearance before a judicial authority (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 32-33, § 59).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 49, 29 April 1999).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 10211/12

  Ist die Sicherungsverwahrung rechtens?

  November 2008, und Stephens./. Malta (Nr. 2), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 33740/06, Rdnr. 84, 21.
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Verstoß Maltas gegen Art. 3 EMRK

  The Court notes, however, that it has held on numerous occasions that constitutional proceedings in Malta are rather cumbersome for Article 5 § 4 purposes, and that lodging a constitutional application does not ensure a speedy review of the lawfulness of an applicant's detention (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000; Kadem, cited above, § 53; Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 90, 21 April 2009; and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 7711/06

  [ENG]

  In Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), (no. 33740/06, §§ 83 and 85-90, 21 April 2009), the Court held that the intervention of the Constitutional Court, which had to be regarded in the particular circumstances of that case, fulfilled the requirements of Article 5 § 4.

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  The Government stated that this had been confirmed by the Court in Stephens v. Malta (no. 2) (no. 33740/06, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  [ENG]

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not, it is apparent, logically or temporally linked (see, for example, Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 52, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA v. MALTA

  However, the Court has also held on numerous occasions that constitutional proceedings in Malta are rather cumbersome for Article 5 § 4 purposes, and that lodging a constitutional application does not ensure a speedy review of the lawfulness of an applicant's detention (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000; Kadem, cited above § 53; Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 90, 21 April 2009; and Louled Massoud, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 50903/06

  [ENG]

  In Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), (no. 33740/06, §§ 83 and 85-90, 21 April 2009), the Court held that the intervention of the Constitutional Court, which had to be regarded in the particular circumstances of that case, fulfilled the requirements of Article 5 § 4.
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 46092/06

  [ENG]

  In Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), (no. 33740/06, §§ 83 and 85-90, 21 April 2009), the Court held that the intervention of the Constitutional Court, which had to be regarded in the particular circumstances of that case, fulfilled the requirements of Article 5 § 4.
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 11956/07

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (No. 1)

  On 9 August 2006 the applicant, who at the time was under house arrest in Malta, also introduced another application with the Court with further complaints regarding later stages of his proceedings in Malta (application no. 33740/06).
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 38336/21

  RISTIC v. SERBIA

  Rn. 42 Article 5 § 3 of the Convention furthermore provides persons arrested or detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence with a guarantee against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 47, ECHR 1999-III, and Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, § 52, 21 April 2009).
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 1497/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 35321/21

  ZUKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 55102/13

  V.R. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 45593/13

  JOVIC v. CROATIA