Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORG v. MALTA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 69981/14

  RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  What may be regarded as "reasonable" will, however, depend upon all the circumstances (see Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, § 32, Series A no. 182 and Rasul Jafarov v. Azerbaijan, no. 69981/14, § 116, 17 March 2016).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  It is noted that, under the Court's case-law, while house arrest is considered, in view of its degree and intensity, to amount to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention, an inability to leave home during the night does not amount to house arrest and hence deprivation of liberty (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 86, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 2474/06

  GANEA c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  Noting that the provision does not refer to specific amounts (see Cumber v. The United Kingdom, no. 28779/95, Commission Decision of 27 November 1996), the Court considers that, in principle, an award of EUR 150 for a three-day detention would not be entirely disproportionate (see by contrast, Ganea v. Moldova, no. 2474/06, § 30, 17 May 2011, where EUR 63 was considered too little for a three-day detention; see also Attard v. Malta (dec.), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000, where the equivalent of EUR 230 - without an order for costs - was found proportionate in respect of detention of some hours).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  Moreover, according to the Court's established case-law under Article 5 § 3, the persistence of a reasonable suspicion is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the continued detention, but, after a certain lapse of time, it no longer suffices: the Court must then establish (1) whether other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify the deprivation of liberty and (2), where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", whether the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among many other authorities, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 140, 22 May 2012 and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 87, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of his having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed on the facts of each case and according to its specific features (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV; and Buzadji, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  A person may be detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of his having committed an offence (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 50, ECHR 2000-IX, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 108, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28779/95

  CUMBER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  Noting that the provision does not refer to specific amounts (see Cumber v. The United Kingdom, no. 28779/95, Commission Decision of 27 November 1996), the Court considers that, in principle, an award of EUR 150 for a three-day detention would not be entirely disproportionate (see by contrast, Ganea v. Moldova, no. 2474/06, § 30, 17 May 2011, where EUR 63 was considered too little for a three-day detention; see also Attard v. Malta (dec.), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000, where the equivalent of EUR 230 - without an order for costs - was found proportionate in respect of detention of some hours).
• EGMR, 28.09.2000 - 46750/99

  ATTARD v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  Noting that the provision does not refer to specific amounts (see Cumber v. The United Kingdom, no. 28779/95, Commission Decision of 27 November 1996), the Court considers that, in principle, an award of EUR 150 for a three-day detention would not be entirely disproportionate (see by contrast, Ganea v. Moldova, no. 2474/06, § 30, 17 May 2011, where EUR 63 was considered too little for a three-day detention; see also Attard v. Malta (dec.), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000, where the equivalent of EUR 230 - without an order for costs - was found proportionate in respect of detention of some hours).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 39783/15

  In principle, in the absence of a breach of Article 5, the complaint under Article 5 § 5 is inapplicable and thus, inadmissible (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 228, ECHR 2009, and, a contrario, in the case of an upheld violation of Article 5, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 183, ECHR 2012).