Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  W.A. v. SWITZERLAND

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  W.A. c. SUISSE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 61827/09

  K ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  As for the imposition of a "heavier" penalty "than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed", the Court found notably in the case of K. v. Germany (no. 61827/09, 7 June 2012) in respect of retrospective, or subsequent, preventive detention under German law that it amounted to such a "heavier" sanction imposed with retrospective effect.
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 45776/16

  JIDIC v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  Those qualitative requirements must be satisfied as regards both the definition of an offence and the penalty the offence carries (see Del Río Prada, cited above, § 91, and Jidic v. Romania, no. 45776/16, § 79, 18 February 2020).
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 6587/04

  Verstoß gegen das Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit durch die nachträgliche …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  Therefore, if in the sentencing court's judgment, no order for the preventive detention of the offender was made, that judgment did not cover any preventive detention ordered subsequently and there was thus no sufficient causal connection between the applicant's "conviction", for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), and his subsequent preventive detention (compare, inter alia, Haidn v. Germany, no. 6587/04, §§ 84-88, 13 January 2011; B v. Germany, no. 61272/09, §§ 72-76, 19 April 2012; S. v. Germany, no. 3300/10, §§ 85-90, 28 June 2012; and Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  In principle, the "detention" of a person as a mental-health patient will be "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e) only if it takes place in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution authorised for that purpose (see Ilnseher, cited above, § 134; Rooman, cited above, §§ 190 and 193; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 147, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 61272/09

  B. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  Therefore, if in the sentencing court's judgment, no order for the preventive detention of the offender was made, that judgment did not cover any preventive detention ordered subsequently and there was thus no sufficient causal connection between the applicant's "conviction", for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), and his subsequent preventive detention (compare, inter alia, Haidn v. Germany, no. 6587/04, §§ 84-88, 13 January 2011; B v. Germany, no. 61272/09, §§ 72-76, 19 April 2012; S. v. Germany, no. 3300/10, §§ 85-90, 28 June 2012; and Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10

  MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  The Court reiterates that the Convention must be read as a whole, and interpreted in such a way as to promote internal consistency and harmony between its various provisions (see Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, § 92, 8 July 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 43977/13

  KADUSIC c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  In Kadusic v. Switzerland (no. 43977/13, 9 January 2018), which concerned a subsequent order of an institutional therapeutic measure under Swiss law, the Court was in principle prepared to accept that the order for an institutional measure amounted to a correction of the original judgment following the discovery of relevant new circumstances and that the fact that the measure was ordered in the context of proceedings for the review of a penalty imposed in a previous judgment may constitute a causal link between the initial conviction and the measure in issue, as required by the relevant case-law of the Court concerning sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 § 1 (ibid., § 50).
• EGMR, 28.06.2012 - 3300/10

  S ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  Therefore, if in the sentencing court's judgment, no order for the preventive detention of the offender was made, that judgment did not cover any preventive detention ordered subsequently and there was thus no sufficient causal connection between the applicant's "conviction", for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), and his subsequent preventive detention (compare, inter alia, Haidn v. Germany, no. 6587/04, §§ 84-88, 13 January 2011; B v. Germany, no. 61272/09, §§ 72-76, 19 April 2012; S. v. Germany, no. 3300/10, §§ 85-90, 28 June 2012; and Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 04.06.2015 - 5425/11

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  The Court has held in its case-law that the word "conviction" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), having regard to the French text ("condamnation"), has to be understood as signifying both a finding of guilt after it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence, and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving the deprivation of liberty (see Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 123, ECHR 2013, and Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, § 49, ECHR 2015).
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 12.07.2013 - 6/12

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 38958/16

  By a judgment of 6/12 May 1993, as amended on 4 July 1995 following a remittal, the Zurich Jury Court (Geschworenengericht) convicted the applicant, inter alia, of murder and of intentional manslaughter and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 40516/19

  MEHENNI (ADDA) v. SWITZERLAND

  Le terme « après'implique l'existence d'un lien de causalité suffisant entre la détention et la condamnation (W.A. c. Suisse, no 38958/16, § 33, 2 novembre 2021).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 55234/21

  M.A. v. LATVIA

  Rn. 80 The word "conviction" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a) has to be understood as signifying both a finding of guilt after it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence, and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving the deprivation of liberty (see W.A. v. Switzerland, no. 38958/16, § 32, 2 November 2021).
• EGMR - 36598/19 (anhängig)

  A.R. c. SUISSE et 7 autres affaires

  En particulier, le requérant a-t-il été placé dans un établissement approprié conformément à l'article 5 § 1 e) de la Convention et au regard de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour (Kadusic c. Suisse, no 43977/13, 9 janvier 2018 ; W.A. c. Suisse, no 38958/16, 2 novembre 2021 ; I.L. c. Suisse (no 2), no 36609/16, 26 février 2024 ; et Mehenni (Adda) c. Suisse (comité), no 40516/19, 9 avril 2024) ?.

• EGMR, 29.01.2026 - 43427/22

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA

  In other words, his placement in pre-trial detention on 31 March 2022 did not amount to a subsequent imposition of a new, additional deprivation of liberty (contrast W.A. v. Switzerland, no. 38958/16, §§ 39-45, 2 November 2021).
• EGMR, 06.11.2025 - 69503/17

  POUR HAYAVI ZADEH c. SUISSE

  Rn. 16 La Cour est appelée à décider, en premier lieu, si, à la lumière des principes évoqués dans l'arrêt W.A. c. Suisse, no 38958/16, §§ 32-35, 2 novembre 2021, 1a détention ultérieure du requérant en cause était justifiée au regard de l'alinéa a) de l'article 5 § 1 en tant que détention « après condamnation ".
• EGMR - 24335/20 (anhängig)

  U.B. c. SUISSE

  Dans l'affirmative, et au regard de la jurisprudence de la Cour (voir notamment W.A. c. Suisse, no 38958/16, § 45, 2 novembre 2021, Mehenni (Adda) c. Suisse, no 40516/19, § 20, 9 avril 2024 (comité), Pour Hayavi Zadeh c. Suisse, no 69503/17, § 17, 6 novembre 2025 (comité)), le lien de causalité entre la condamnation initiale du requérant et le prononcé de l'internement, intervenu après la période de détention illégale et la détention pour motifs de sûreté, était-il suffisant au sens de l'article 5 § 1 a) de la Convention ?.
• EGMR - 60476/21 (anhängig)

  R.B. c. SUISSE

  En particulier, existait-il un lien de causalité suffisant entre la condamnation du requérant et sa détention en raison du prononcé ultérieur d'un internement, au sens de l'article 5 § 1 a) de la Convention (W.A. c. Suisse, no 38958/16, §§ 32-35, 2 novembre 2021, Kadusic c. Suisse, no 43977/13, §§ 38-40, 9 janvier 2018).
• EGMR - 6688/20 (anhängig)

  A.C. c. SUISSE

  La détention du requérant en raison de la mesure thérapeutique institutionnelle relève-t-elle de l'une des alinéas a) à f) de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention, en particulier le requérant a-t-il été détenu au sein d'un hôpital, d'une clinique ou d'un autre établissement approprié et a-t-il bénéficié d'une thérapie adéquate au sens de l'article 5 § 1 e) de la Convention (W.A. c. Suisse, no 38958/16, §§ 36-38, 2 novembre 2021, Kadusic c. Suisse, no 43977/13, §§ 42-45, 9 janvier 2018, 11nseher c. Allemagne [GC], nos 10211/12 et 27505/14, §§ 126-141, 4 décembre 2018, Rooman c. Belgique [GC], no 18052/11, §§ 208-211, 31 janvier 2019) ?.