Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ENHORN c. SUEDE

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-1-e Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ENHORN v. SWEDEN

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1-e Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.12.2002 - 56529/00
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2006, 2313
• NVwZ 2006, 1149

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  By way of comparison, for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e), an individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are satisfied: firstly, he must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39; Johnson v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 October 1997, Reports 1997-VII, p. 2409, § 60; and, more recently, Varbanov, cited above, § 45).

  Article 5 § 1 (e), which provides for the possibility of depriving a person of his liberty "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" ("selon les voies légales" in French) where the purpose is "the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants", has not given rise to a very extensive body of case-law, apart from certain well-known judgments such as Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, (judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33) which relates to persons of unsound mind.

  The validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of the disorder in question (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39).

• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  Moreover, an essential element of the "lawfulness" of a detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) is the absence of arbitrariness (see, amongst other authorities, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1864, § 118, and Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III).

  On a general level, it is consistent with the case-law, at least with regard to the existence of "less severe" measures (see, for example, Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 26 and 79, ECHR 2000-III) - although the judgment does not identify them.

  In that particular case the Court held that "[t]he detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is only justified where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest which might require that the person concerned be detained" and that "it does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is executed in conformity with national law but it must also be necessary in the circumstances" (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  It is therefore legitimate to conclude from this context that a predominant reason why the Convention allows the persons mentioned in paragraph 1 (e) of Article 5 to be deprived of their liberty is not only that they are a danger to public safety but also that their own interests may necessitate their detention (see Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 36-37, § 98 in fine, and Witold Litwa, cited above, § 60,).

  The aim of Article 5, which relates to individual liberty, is "to ensure that no one should be dispossessed of this liberty in an arbitrary fashion" (see Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 33, § 92).

 
• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  LAWLESS c. IRLANDE (N° 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  In my opinion, it follows both from the letter of the Court's settled case-law on deprivation of liberty and, above all, from the spirit that has imbued it and continues to do so, that if a review of a measure depriving a person of his liberty were to allow the State a certain margin of appreciation in such matters, this would not in any way accord with a line of case-law which, ever since Lawless, has taken care to stress the importance of the Article 5 safeguards even in a context in which recourse to Article 17 of the Convention might be necessary (see Lawless v. Ireland (merits), judgment of 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3, pp.
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  Furthermore, the list of exceptions to the right to liberty secured in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one, meaning that "only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim and purpose of that provision" (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, pp. 17-18, § 42).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  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 Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, p. 21, § 44).
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among other authorities, Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 21, § 49).
• EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95

  AMANN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently accessible and precise to allow the person - if necessary with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences a given action may entail (see, for example, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 51, ECHR 2000-X; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2735, § 54; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 850-51, § 50; and Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, § 51, 8 June 2004).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently accessible and precise to allow the person - if necessary with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences a given action may entail (see, for example, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 51, ECHR 2000-X; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II; Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2735, § 54; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 850-51, § 50; and Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, § 51, 8 June 2004).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

  The Court considers that, in the circumstances of this particular case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the applicant should be awarded the sum of EUR 12, 000 (see, for example, Witold Litwa, cited above, § 85; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 66, ECHR 2002-I; and Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, § 74, 11 May 2004).
• EGMR, 25.09.2003 - 52792/99

  VASILEVA v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 08.06.2004 - 40905/98

  HILDA HAFSTEINSDOTTIR v. ICELAND

• EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 13229/03

  Großbritannien (A), Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, Europäische …

  addition be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see the abovementioned Bouamar judgment, § 50; Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, § 46; Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Indeed, it is clear from the Court's case-law that an underlying public interest motive, for example to protect the community against a perceived threat emanating from an individual, has no bearing on the question whether that person has been deprived of his liberty, although it might be relevant to the subsequent inquiry whether the deprivation of liberty was justified under one of the subparagraphs of Article 5 § 1 (see, among many examples, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 166, 19 February 2009; Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 33, ECHR 2005-I; M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 76204/11

  NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA

  It does not suffice that the deprivation of liberty is in conformity with national law; it must also be necessary in the circumstances (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III, and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 26.01.2016 - C-601/15

  N. - Eilvorabentscheidungsverfahren - Drittstaatsangehöriger, der einen …

  110 - Vgl. in diesem Sinne u. a. EGMR, Enhorn/Schweden, Nr. 56529/00, § 43 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung, EGMR 2005-I.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  While that is a point which the Court checks in each case (see Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 52, 24 March 2005, in relation to sub-paragraph (a); Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, §§ 42 and 48, ECHR 2010; Ostendorf v. Germany, no. 15598/08, § 97, 7 March 2013; and Baisuev and Anzorov, cited above, §§ 57-58, in relation to sub-paragraph (b); Engel and Others, cited above, § 69, and the judgments cited in paragraph 185 above in relation to sub-paragraph (c); Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 50, Series A no. 129, in relation to sub-paragraph (d); Ashingdane, cited above, § 48, and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 35, ECHR 2005-I, in relation to sub-paragraph (e); and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 112, Reports 1996-V, and Saadi, cited above, §§ 77 and 79, in relation to sub-paragraph (f)), it usually does not neatly separate it from the other elements affecting the compatibility of the detention with Article 5 § 1.
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 28221/08

  GATT v. MALTA

  Par ailleurs, l'applicabilité de l'un de ces motifs n'exclut pas celle d'un autre, et la détention peut, selon les circonstances, se justifier au titre de plusieurs des alinéas de cette disposition (voir par exemple Eriksen c. Norvège, arrêt du 27 mai 1997, Recueil 1997-III, pp. 861-862, § 76, et Enhorn c. Suède, no 56529/00, § 34, CEDH 2005-(...)).
• EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 62819/17

  DENIS AND IRVINE v. BELGIUM

  Parmi les principes généraux découlant de la Convention auxquels renvoie la jurisprudence relative à l'article 5 § 1 figurent le principe de la prééminence du droit (Buzadji, précité, § 84, et S., V. et A. c. Danemark, précité, § 73) et, lié au précédent, celui de la sécurité juridique (voir, parmi d'autres, Baranowski c. Pologne, no 28358/95, § 52, CEDH 2000-III), ainsi que le principe de proportionnalité (voir, par exemple, Enhorn c. Suède, no 56529/00, § 36, CEDH 2005-I).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22

  A.D. v. MALTA

  When these criteria are no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty ceases to exist (see Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 44, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  There must in addition be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 46, Reports 1998-V; and Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 42, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 71407/10

  SIMONS c. BELGIQUE

  The Court further points out that the general principles implied by the Convention to which the Article 5 § 1 case-law refers are the principle of the rule of law (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 461, ECHR 2004-VII) and, connected to the latter, that of legal certainty (see, among other authorities, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000 III), the principle of proportionality (see, for example, Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 36, ECHR 2005-I) and the principle of protection against arbitrariness (which is, moreover, the very aim of Article 5 - see, inter alia, Erkalo, cited above, § 52).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 4691/06

  JUSIC c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 18.03.2008 - 11036/03

  LADENT v. POLAND
• EGMR, 30.03.2006 - 50358/99

  PEKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03

  LAZARIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  ARTYOMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 73560/12

  CONSTANCIA v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 21124/04

  TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05

  MIROSLAW ZIELINSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 14579/05

  WENNER v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 39678/09

  L.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 13837/07

  S.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.09.2008 - 2361/05

  VRENCEV v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 3522/04

  SALMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 23668/22 (anhängig)

  STAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 49734/12

  V.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 6587/07

  FEFILOV v. RUSSIA