Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.B. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion) Violation of Art. 13+3 No violation of Art. 34 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 36009/08

  The Court finds it is more appropriate to examine the applicant's complaint from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention alone (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 62; NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 95, 17 July 2008; and Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 37, ECHR 2005-VI).
• BPatG, 17.11.2011 - 3 ZA (pat) 54/11

  Patentnichtigkeitsklageverfahren - mehrere Gerichtsgebühren bei nachträglicher …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 36009/08

  15/09/2010.
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 36009/08

  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (no. 30471/08, §§ 29-45, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]

  The Court acknowledges that no issue arises with regard to the right to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention where a detainee is released before any speedy review could have taken place (see, for instance, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 45, Series A no. 182; Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 159, ECHR 2003-X; and M.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 36009/08, § 45, 15 June 2010).
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 49867/08

  [ENG]

  In the light of its case-law, according to which Article 5 § 4 does not deal with remedies which may serve to review the lawfulness of a short-term detention that has already ended, the Court does not find it necessary to determine the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 158-159, ECHR 2003-X; M.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 36009/08, § 45, 15 June 2010; and Ghorbanov and Others, cited above, § 49).
• EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62775/14

  MIRGADIROV v. AZERBAIJAN AND TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court does not find it necessary to examine the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 4 (see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 158-159, ECHR 2003-X; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 45, Series A no. 182; and M.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 36009/08, § 45, 15 June 2010; and compare Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-I, and A.M. v. France, no. 56324/13, § 36, 12 July 2016, where the Court examined the merits of complaints under Article 5 § 4 where deprivation of liberty pending expulsion had lasted five days and three and a half days respectively).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  [ENG]

  Moreover, unlike in some other cases where the applicants were released within a matter of hours before any judicial scrutiny of their detention could in practice have taken place (see, for example, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 45, Series A no. 182; Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 159, ECHR 2003-X; and M.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 36009/08, § 45, 15 June 2010), the Ankara Administrative Court had the opportunity in the instant case to pronounce on the lawfulness or otherwise of the applicant's detention, such as when it delivered its interim decision on 14 August 2009 suspending the execution of the deportation decision.