Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  H.M. v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  H.M. c. SUISSE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  Nor did the intervention of the police, which would have been appropriate for the return of any runaway child of that age even to parental custody, throw a different light on the situation." (judgment of 28 November 1988, Series A no. 144, pp. 25 and 26, §§ 70 and 72).

  Thus, I find that the present circumstances differ from those in Nielsen v. Denmark which involved a minor who was temporarily placed in a locked psychiatric ward of a State hospital, at his mother's request, for therapeutic purposes (judgment of 28 November 1988, Series A no. 144, pp. 25-26, § 70).

  Like Judge Gaukur Jörundsson, I find that the circumstances of the present case differ from those in Nielsen v. Denmark (judgment of 28 November 1988, Series A no. 144).

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  To hold otherwise would not be reconcilable with the text of Article 5 § 1 which sets out an exhaustive list of exceptions calling for a narrow interpretation (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37).

  It is not sufficient that a person's views or behaviour deviate from the established norms (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37).

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  However, as the Court found in Guzzardi v. Italy, a person's own interests may also warrant a deprivation of liberty (judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 37, § 98).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  The distinction between a deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 19, § 41).
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 39187/98

  The Government also drew attention to Witold Litwa v. Poland (no. 26629/95, ECHR 2000-III) in which the Court considered, in relation to Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, that the predominant reason for depriving persons of their liberty was not only the danger to public safety but also the persons' own interests, for instance in receiving medical care.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Der Gerichtshof erinnert daran, dass von der besonderen Situation der betroffenen Person auszugehen ist und vielerlei Faktoren wie die Art, die Dauer, die Wirkungen und Form der Durchführung der fraglichen Maßnahme, die sich in einer bestimmten Rechtssache ergeben, zu berücksichtigen sind, um festzustellen, ob eine Freiheitsentziehung vorliegt (siehe u. a. Rechtssachen Guzzardi ./. Italien , Urteil vom 6. November 1980, Serie A, Bd. 39, S. 33, Nr. 92, Nielsen ./. Daenmark , Urteil vom 28. November 1998, Serie A, Bd. 144, S. 24, Nr. 67, und H. M. ./. die Schweiz , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39187/98, EuGHMR 2002-II, Nr. 42).
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 1760/15

  T.B. c. SUISSE

  L'ancien article 397a du code civil (voir également, à ce propos, H.M. c. Suisse, no 39187/98, § 28, CEDH 2002-II) était libellé comme suit:.
• EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 25344/20

  FRIEDRICH v. POLAND and 17 other applications

  The Court attaches importance to factors such as whether there is a possibility to leave the restricted area, the degree of supervision and control over the movements of the person concerned, the extent of that person's isolation and the possibility of contact with the outside world (see Guzzardi, cited above § 95, and H.M. v. Switzerland, no. 39187/98, § 45, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 11.06.2026 - 50181/22

  C.P. v. SPAIN

  The Court attaches importance to factors such as whether it is possible to leave the restricted area, the degree of supervision and control over the movements of the person concerned, the extent of that person's isolation and whether they can have contact with the outside world (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 95, Series A no. 39, cited above, and H.M. v. Switzerland, no. 39187/98, § 45, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 2344/02

  DRITSAS ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  81, p. 130), les lieux et la durée d'exécution de celle-ci (Engel et autres, précité, §§ 61-65), la personne ou l'organisme dont cette mesure émanait (Nielsen c. Danemark, 28 novembre 1988, § 73, série A no 144) et l'existence du consentement de la personne alléguant sa privation de liberté (Storck c. Allemagne, no 61603/00, § 74, CEDH 2005-V et H.M. c. Suisse, no 39187/98, § 47, CEDH 2002-II).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50131/08

  [ENG]

  A person can only be considered to have been deprived of his liberty if, as an additional subjective element, he has not validly consented to the confinement in question (see, mutatis mutandis, H.M. v. Switzerland, no. 39187/98, § 46, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 13469/06

  D.D. v. LITHUANIA

  With respect to the subjective element of her complaint, the applicant noted that her case was diametrically opposite to that of H.M. v. Switzerland (no. 39187/98, § 47, ECHR 2002-II), where the applicant had agreed to her admission to a nursing home.
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the Court does not consider itself bound by the legal conclusions of the domestic authorities as to whether or not there has been a deprivation of liberty, and it thus undertakes an autonomous assessment of the situation (see H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 90, ECHR 2004-IX; H.M. v. Switzerland, no. 39187/98, §§ 30 and 48, ECHR 2002-II; and Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 92, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 5297/16

  ISHKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court attaches importance to factors such as whether there is a possibility to leave the restricted area, the degree of supervision and control over the movements of the person concerned, the extent of that person's isolation and the possibility of contact with the outside world (see Guzzardi, cited above § 95; Friedrich and Others; cited above, § 151; and H.M. v. Switzerland, no. 39187/98, § 45, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 43643/10

  HANZELKOVI c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  La Cour rappelle que pour déterminer si un individu se trouve privé de sa liberté au sens de l'article 5, il faut partir de sa situation concrète et prendre en compte un ensemble de critères comme le genre, la durée, les effets et les modalités d'exécution de la mesure considérée (voir Guzzardi c. Italie, 6 novembre 1980, § 92, série A no 39; H.M. c. Suisse, no 39187/98, § 42, CEDH 2002-II).
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 28940/95

  FOKA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 1285/03

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 34010/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.06.2020 - 42779/12

  NUR AHMED v. UKRAINE and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 35939/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 45026/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.07.2025 - 13375/18

  SIEDLECKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 25820/07

  STANKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 70015/01

  OLCER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 35807/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.12.2000 - 38176/98

  H.M. v. SWITZERLAND