Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention Speediness of review) Violation of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mikalauskas v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 4458/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (46)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  Furthermore, as already held by the Court (see for example, Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003), constitutional redress proceedings were cumbersome and could not be considered expeditious.

  Lastly, as to constitutional proceedings, the applicant cited Kadem v. Malta (no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003), reiterating that the listing of such an application could take up to a month.

  The review, being intended to establish whether the deprivation of the individual's liberty is justified, must be sufficiently wide to encompass the various circumstances militating for or against detention (see Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, § 42, 9 January 2003).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  Under Article 3, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

  It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the true facts mentioned by the applicant in his appeals, that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  ZARB v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  Such courts can also make an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and there is no limit on the amount which can be granted to an applicant for such a violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Gera de Petri Testaferrata Bonici Ghaxaq v. Malta, no. 26771/07, § 69, 5 April 2011, in relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 51, 4 July 2006, in relation to Article 6).

  The Court notes that the applicant did not institute constitutional redress proceedings, an acceptable remedy under Maltese domestic law for Convention complaints generally (see, for example, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, 4 July 2006 in relation to Article 6; and, by implication, Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013 in relation to Article 7; Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, 22 November 2011 in relation to Article 8; Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 28040/08, 14 June 2011 in relation to Article 10; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011 in relation to Article 14).

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  Quasi-automatic prolongation of detention contravenes the guarantees set forth in Article 5 § 3 (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 116-118, ECHR 2002-VI and Tase v. Romania, no. 29761/02, § 40, 10 June 2008).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 53124/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  The Court notes that the applicant did not institute constitutional redress proceedings, an acceptable remedy under Maltese domestic law for Convention complaints generally (see, for example, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, 4 July 2006 in relation to Article 6; and, by implication, Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013 in relation to Article 7; Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, 22 November 2011 in relation to Article 8; Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 28040/08, 14 June 2011 in relation to Article 10; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011 in relation to Article 14).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  Therefore, the amount of bail must be set by reference to the detainees" assets, and with due regard to the extent to which the prospect of its loss will be a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on their part to abscond (see Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, § 14, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  Where the only remaining reasons for continued detention is the fear that the accused will abscond and thereby subsequently avoid appearing for trial, his release pending trial must be ordered if it is possible to obtain from him guarantees that will ensure such appearance (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 15, Series A no. 7 and Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 46, Series A no. 207).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  The authorities must ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition, supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  In particular, the competent court should examine not only compliance with the procedural requirements set out in domestic law, but also the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by the arrest and the ensuing detention (see Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001 and Bochev v. Bulgaria, no. 73481/01, § 64, 13 November 2008).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10

  He noted that, although the law had changed following the judgments in Aquilina v. Malta ([GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III) and T.W. v. Malta ([GC], no. 25644/94, 29 April 1999), the Criminal Code provided for the legality of a person's arrest to be determined in its initial stages, but that procedure was not repeated during the months and years during which the person was kept in detention.
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 12050/04

  Mangouras ./. Spanien
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08

  Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 24202/10

  Maempel ./. Malta
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 24342/04

  ZUNIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 13772/05

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 35892/97

  SABEUR BEN ALI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 15434/11

  TELLISSI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 29545/06

  ULU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 43517/09

  TORREGGIANI AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 57875/09 (anhängig)

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 58447/00

  ZAVOLOKA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 21116/09

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen