Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRAND v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.09.2001 - 49902/99
• EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  This applies in particular to the list of permissible exceptions in paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention "...having regard to the fact that they constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom" (see Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1184, § 122; and see also Ciulla v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 18, § 41; and Labita v.Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  The provisions of this Article authorise "the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" and "the lawful detention of persons... of unsound mind..." It is a well-established principle that the limitations on the rights provided in the Convention should be interpreted strictly and narrowly (see, among other authorities, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 21, § 42, Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A no. 30, p. 40, § 65, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, § 37, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 36, § 98).
• EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  This applies in particular to the list of permissible exceptions in paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention "...having regard to the fact that they constitute exceptions to a most basic guarantee of individual freedom" (see Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, p. 1184, § 122; and see also Ciulla v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 18, § 41; and Labita v.Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  Reiterating that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 21, § 49), the Court accepts, in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 June 1998 and the judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal of 25 February 1999, that the applicant's pre-placement detention during the period under consideration was lawful under domestic law.
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  Although it is true that the Court has held in the past that there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention, and that, in principle, the "detention" of a person as a mental health patient will only be "lawful" for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-IV, with further references), the Court, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot accept the applicant's argument that the failure to admit him to a custodial clinic on 10 October 1994 rendered his detention after that date automatically unlawful under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 48865/99

  MORSINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  This issue is the same as in the case of Morsink v. the Netherlands (no. 48865/99), in which the Court has also delivered judgment today.
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39619/98

  ANDRZEJ AND BARBARA PILKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2004 - 49902/99

  I would note that the Court has repeatedly held in respect of the "reasonable-time" requirement under Article 6 of the Convention that the authorities cannot rely on practical difficulties to justify unreasonable delays and that the High Contracting Parties are expected to organise their judicial system in such a way as to meet the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Andrzej and Barbara Piłka v. Poland, no. 39619/98, § 55, 6 May 2003; and Duclos v. France, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-I, pp.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 6587/04

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

  Grundsätzlich ist die "Freiheitsentziehung" einer Person als psychisch Kranker nur dann im Sinne von Abs. 1 Buchstabe e "rechtmäßig", wenn sie in einem Krankenhaus, einer Klinik oder einer anderen geeigneten Einrichtung erfolgt (siehe Ashingdane ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 28. Mai 1985, Rdnr. 44, Serie A Band 93; Aerts ./. Belgien, 30. Juli 1998, Rdnr. 46, Reports 1998-V; Hutchison Reid, a.a.O., Rdnr. 49; und Brand ./. die Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 49902/99, Rdnr. 62, 11.
• EGMR, 13.01.2011 - 17792/07

  Kallweit ./. Deutschland

  Grundsätzlich ist die "Freiheitsentziehung" einer Person als psychisch Kranker nur dann im Sinne von Abs. 1 Buchstabe e "rechtmäßig", wenn sie in einem Krankenhaus, einer Klinik oder einer anderen geeigneten Einrichtung erfolgt (siehe Ashingdane ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 28. Mai 1985, Rdnr. 44, Serie A Band 93; Aerts ./. Belgien, 30. Juli 1998, Rdnr. 46, Urteils- und Entscheidungssammlung 1998-V; Hutchison Reid, a.a.O., Rdnr. 49; und Brand ./. die Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 49902/99, Rdnr. 62, 11.
• OLG Stuttgart, 01.06.2010 - 1 Ws 57/10

  Sicherungsverwahrung: Sofortige Entlassung in sog. Zehnjahresfällen wegen …

  Jedoch verlangt der EGMR (…Urt. v. 20.02.2003 - 50272/99 - Hutchinson Reid ./. Vereinigtes Königreich Ziff. 47 f.) in solchen Fällen grundsätzlich die Unterbringung in einem Krankenhaus oder einer entsprechenden anderen geeigneten Einrichtung und lässt die Unterbringung in einem Gefängnis nur übergangsweise - für wenige Monate - zu (…EGMR, Urt. v. 11.05.2004 - 48865/99 - Morsink ./. Niederlande Ziff. 61 ff.; s. weiterhin Urt. v. 11.05.2004 - Brand ./. Niederlande - 49902/99 Ziff. 66).

• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 21906/09

  [ENG]

  Grundsätzlich ist die "Freiheitsentziehung" einer Person wegen psychischer Krankheit nur dann im Sinne von Abs. 1 Buchstabe e "rechtmäßig", wenn sie in einem Krankenhaus, einer Klinik oder einer anderen geeigneten Einrichtung erfolgt (siehe Rechtssachen Ashingdane ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 28. Mai 1985, Rdnr. 44, Serie A Band 93; Aerts ./. Belgien, 30. Juli 1998, Rdnr. 46, Entscheidungssammlung 1998 V; Hutchison Reid, a. a. O., Rdnr. 49; Brand ./. Niederlande, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 49902/99, Rdnr. 62, 11.
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 29514/05

  VAN DER VELDEN c. PAYS-BAS

  De surcroît, les mesures (maatregelen) suivantes peuvent être imposées en vertu du code pénal: le retrait du commerce des marchandises saisies, la confiscation d'un avantage obtenu illégalement, l'ordre de payer une indemnité, l'internement dans un hôpital psychiatrique, la mise à la disposition du gouvernement (terbeschikkingstelling ; voir Brand c. Pays-Bas, no 49902/99, §§ 23-24, 11 mai 2004) et le placement dans une institution pour délinquants multirécidivistes.
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 6051/07

  [ENG]

  By letter of 16 August 2006, the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that, given the Court's conclusion in the case of Brand v. the Netherlands, no. 49902/99, 11 May 2004, the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Juvenile Protection (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming) had found that financial compensation was appropriate in all cases where pre-placement detention after the end of a prison sentence had exceeded six months.

  In view of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Brand (no. 49902/99) and Morsink (no. 48865/99) and the decisions of the Council for the Application of Criminal Law and the Protection of Juveniles it may be assumed that a time lapse of six months or more for persons subject to a TBS order is, in principle, wrongful in the light of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

• LG Düsseldorf, 17.08.2010 - 52 StVK 40/10

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Anordnung einer Fortdauer des Maßregelvollzugs für einen …

  Rn. 33 Soweit der EGMR bei Freiheitsentziehung im Sinne des Art. 5 Abs. 1 S. 2 e EMRK die Unterbringung in einem Krankenhaus oder einer entsprechenden anderen geeigneten Einrichtung verlangt und eine Unterbringung in einem Gefängnis nur übergangsweise erlaubt (vgl. Urteil vom 20. Februar 2003 - 50272/99 - Hutchinson Reid ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Ziff. 47 f.; Urteil vom 11. Mai 2004 - 48865/99 - Morsink ./. Niederlande, Ziff. 61 ff.; Urteil vom 11. Mai 2004 - 49902/99 - Brand ./. Niederlande, Ziff. 66), ist diesem Erfordernis durch die Überweisung des Betroffenen in den Vollzug der Unterbringung in einem psychiatrischen Krankenhaus Rechnung getragen.
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 34399/05

  HEINSE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In reaching this finding, the Supreme Court referred, inter alia, to the Court's judgments of 11 May 2004 in the cases of Morsink v. the Netherlands (no. 48865/99, §§ 26-37, 11 May 2004) and Brand v. the Netherlands (no. 49902/99, §§ 23-33, 11 May 2004).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 22954/04

  VAN GILST v. THE NETHERLANDS

  It is true that the agreement at issue was based on domestic case-law to the effect that a duration of pre-placement detention of less than twelve months was permissible, whereas the Court, in its judgment of 11 May 2004 in the case of Brand v. the Netherlands (no. 49902/99, §§ 66-67, 11 May 2004), held that even a delay of six months in the admission of a person to a custodial clinic was contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.