Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POPOVICIU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09
• EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 52942/09

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 16528/05

  HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  The restriction may be justified in a given case only if there are clear indications of a genuine public interest which outweighs the individual's right to freedom of movement (see Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, § 63, 10 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 14183/02

  ANTONENKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  On the other hand, in cases where this obligation was imposed for periods varying between four years and three months and four years and ten months, the Court, having also had regard to other specific circumstances of each case, did not find the restriction of the applicants' freedom of movement disproportionate (see Fedorov and Fedorova, cited above, §§ 42-47, and Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 62-67, 22 November 2005).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 6767/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  The Court has previously found in a series of cases that such an obligation imposed on the applicants was disproportionate in cases where the duration of an obligation not to leave the territory of the respondent State varied between more than five years (see Prescher v. Bulgaria no. 6767/04, § 47, 7 June 2011) and more than ten years (see Riener, cited above, § 106).

• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 57, 15 March 2012).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  In this respect the Court notes that according to its established case-law, coercion is a crucial element in its examination of whether or not someone has been deprived of his or her liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, §§ 74-79, 24 June 2008, and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 186-193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  This applies in particular to cases in which Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is at stake; the Court must then exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the above-mentioned Convention provision, and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 109, 23 May 2006; and Bulea v. Romania, no. 27804/10, § 57, 3 December 2013).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 34383/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  Any measure restricting that right must meet the requirements of paragraph 3 of that Article (see, among others, Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, § 44, 26 November 2009, and Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 60, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30943/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  Any measure restricting that right must meet the requirements of paragraph 3 of that Article (see, among others, Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, § 44, 26 November 2009, and Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, § 60, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 51012/11

  DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 52942/09

  Under Romanian law there are only two preventive measures entailing a deprivation of liberty: police custody and pre-trial detention (see Creangă, cited above, § 107 and Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 79, 16 September 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.05.2024 - 34749/16

  DOMENJOUD c. FRANCE et 1 autre requête

  Rn. 74 La Cour, maîtresse de la qualification juridique des faits (Radomilja et autres c. Croatie [GC], nos 37685/10 et 22768/12, §§ 114 et 126, 20 mars 2018), examinera ces griefs sous l'angle du seul article 2 du Protocole no 4, qui comprend également des garanties procédurales (Bulea c. Roumanie, no 27804/10, § 63, 3 décembre 2013, et Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, § 92, 1er mars 2016) et aux termes duquel:.

  Rn. 103 Toutefois, une restriction à la liberté de circulation ne peut être justifiée, dans une affaire donnée, que s'il existe des indices clairs d'une véritable exigence d'intérêt public prévalant sur le droit de l'individu à la liberté de circulation (Hajibeyli c. Azerbaïdjan, no 16528/05, § 63, 10 juillet 2008, Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, § 65, 10 février 2011, et Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, § 91, 1er mars 2016).

• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  [ENG]

  This may be the case even when there is no direct physical restraint of the applicant, such as by handcuffing or placement in a locked cell (see, for instance, Popoviciu v. Romania, no. 52942/09, § 59, 1 March 2016; Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 100, 13 November 2014; Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania, no. 41040/11, § 89, 13 January 2015; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 70, 16 September 2014; Ghiurău v. Romania, no. 55421/10, § 80, 20 November 2012; Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 36, 26 June 2014, with further references therein; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 29535/23 (anhängig)

  DODON c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La restriction à la liberté pour le requérant de quitter le territoire de l'État défendeur était-elle nécessaire, au sens de l'article 2 § 3 du Protocole no 4 à la Convention (Popoviciu c. Roumanie, no 52942/09, §§ 82 et 88-91, 1er mars 2016, et Pagerie c. France, no 24203/16, §§ 193-96, 19 janvier 2023) ?.