Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  The Regional Court observed that a detained person's right to attend his or her hearing was not absolute and inferred from the Court's judgments in the cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33), Sanchez-Reisse (cited above), and Stanev (cited above) that in certain special circumstances exceptions were justified, as long as the detainee's rights under Article 5 of the Convention were adequately safeguarded.

  He argued that the exceptions in the Court's cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33), Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (21 October 1986, Series A no. 107), and Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), were based on issues relating to the detainee himself, such as a mental illness.

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  He referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (21 October 1986, Series A no. 107), and Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), arguing that his case did not qualify for any of the exceptions set out therein to the right to be present at a hearing.

  He argued that the exceptions in the Court's cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33), Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (21 October 1986, Series A no. 107), and Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), were based on issues relating to the detainee himself, such as a mental illness.

• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  He referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (21 October 1986, Series A no. 107), and Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), arguing that his case did not qualify for any of the exceptions set out therein to the right to be present at a hearing.

  He argued that the exceptions in the Court's cases of Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, Series A no. 33), Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland (21 October 1986, Series A no. 107), and Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, ECHR 2012), were based on issues relating to the detainee himself, such as a mental illness.

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  However, the scope of the review required under Article 5 § 4 of the lawfulness of a detention with a view to deportation or extradition is limited, since it does not extend, for example, to the questions whether the detention was "necessary" for the prevention of crime or fleeing (see Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 90, and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 214, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  Nonetheless, it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 56, ECHR 2002-I, and Stanev, cited above, § 171; see also, in the context of detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, albeit concerning detention with a view to extradition, Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 283, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  Nonetheless, it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 56, ECHR 2002-I, and Stanev, cited above, § 171; see also, in the context of detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, albeit concerning detention with a view to extradition, Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 283, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  The Court reiterates that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and that it is not bound by the characterisation given by an applicant (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018, and X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 149, 2 February 2021).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  Having regard to the nature of the applicant's submissions and the manner in which his complaints were formulated, the Court considers that they are to be examined solely by reference to Article 5 § 4, which is the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 of the Convention and of Article 6 under its civil head (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, §§ 47-55, ECHR 2005-XII; Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 27, ECHR 2006-VII; and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 109, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 70148/01

  FODALE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  Having regard to the nature of the applicant's submissions and the manner in which his complaints were formulated, the Court considers that they are to be examined solely by reference to Article 5 § 4, which is the lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 of the Convention and of Article 6 under its civil head (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, §§ 47-55, ECHR 2005-XII; Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, § 27, ECHR 2006-VII; and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 109, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 22842/04

  BAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  However, the Netherlands authorities detained the applicant not for the reasons mentioned in that provision but "with a view to deportation" which is a ground set out in paragraph 1 (f) of Article 5 and renders Article 5 § 3 inapplicable in the present case (see Bah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 22842/04, 20 September 2007, and the authorities cited therein).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) c. SUISSE

  Le contraste avec les réponses fournies jusqu'ici par d'autres chambres de la Cour concernant cette même problématique est saisissant (Ünsal et Timtik c. Turquie (déc.), no 36331/20, 8 juin 2021, Bah c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 35751/20, 22 juin 2021, Zambrano c. France (déc.), no 41994/21, 21 septembre 2021).
• EGMR, 04.09.2025 - 19021/22

  CAMARA c. FRANCE

  La jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de légalité de la rétention administrative, y compris le droit au respect de l'égalité des armes entre les parties et celui d'être entendu en personne mais également de bénéficier de l'assistance effective d'un avocat, est claire et abondante (voir, par exemple, Bah c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 35751/20, § 34, 22 juin 2021, Lutsenko c. Ukraine, no 6492/11, § 96, 3 juillet 2012, et Černák c. Slovaquie, no 36997/08, § 78, 17 décembre 2013).