Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12
• EGMR, 06.09.2017 - 37289/12

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).

  In a series of Russian cases the Court has considered the existence - or absence - of time-limits on detention pending extradition to be relevant to the assessment of the "quality of law" (see, for example, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 171, 18 April 2013; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 139-140, 24 April 2008; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 129, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 121, 11 December 2008; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2007).

• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08

  Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  See also Mathloom v Greece (Application No 48883/07) (unreported) given 24 April 2012 and Massoud v Malta (Application No 24340/08) (unreported) given 27 July 2010 to much the same effect.

  Factors relevant to this assessment of the "quality of law" - which are referred to in some cases as "safeguards against arbitrariness" - will include the existence of clear legal provisions for ordering detention, for extending detention, and for setting time-limits for detention (Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 135 and Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 99, 10 June 2010); and the existence of an effective remedy by which the applicant can contest the "lawfulness" and "length" of his continuing detention (Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 71, 27 July 2010).

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  AUAD v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  The Court has unequivocally held that Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention does not lay down maximum time-limits for detention pending deportation; on the contrary, it has stated that the question whether the length of deportation proceedings could affect the lawfulness of detention under this provision will depend solely on the particular circumstances of each case (see A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus, nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10, § 190, 21 July 2015; Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 72, 12 February 2013; Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 128, 11 October 2011; and Bordovskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 50, 8 February 2005).

 
• EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 11620/07

  GALLARDO SANCHEZ c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  Consequently, even where domestic law does lay down time-limits, compliance with those time-limits cannot be regarded as automatically bringing the applicant's detention into line with Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention (Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy, no. 11620/07, § 39, ECHR 2015; Auad, cited above, § 131).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  ENHORN c. SUEDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  There must in addition be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-V; and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 27.03.2013 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  If such proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible" (Chahal, § 113; see also Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 74, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  One general principle established in the case-law is that detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  Furthermore, the condition that there be no arbitrariness further demands that both the order to detain and the execution of the detention genuinely conform with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09

  CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  The Court recalls that an individual can no longer claim to be a "victim" of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; and, more recently, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 81, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  The Court recalls that an individual can no longer claim to be a "victim" of a violation of the Convention when the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; and, more recently, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 81, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  GARAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 49327/11

  Ohne Kleidung durch England: Nackt-Wanderer verliert
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EuGH, 30.11.2009 - C-357/09

  Kadzoev - Visa, Asyl, Einwanderung und andere Politiken betreffend den freien …
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 5201/11

  SHER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 21.06.2022 - C-704/20

  Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid (Examen d'office de la rétention) - …

  17 Vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 19. Mai 2016, J. N./Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2016:0519JUD003728912, § 87).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.11.2018 - C-492/18

  TC

  25 Vgl. EGMR vom 24. April 2008, 1smoilov u. a./Russland (CE:ECHR:2008:0424JUD000294706, § 137), und EGMR vom 19. Mai 2016, J.N./Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2016:0519JUD003728912, § 77).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 54318/14

  J.M.O. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The test applied by the United Kingdom courts is therefore almost identical to that applied by this Court under Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention in determining whether or not detention has become "arbitrary" (see J.N. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37289/12, § 97, 19 May 2016).
• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 33341/13

  DRAGA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The test applied by the United Kingdom courts has been considered almost identical to that applied by this Court under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention in determining whether or not detention has become "arbitrary" (see J.N. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37289/12, § 97, 19 May 2016).