Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZELCS v. LATVIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZELCS v. LATVIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 65367/16

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 29276/17

  CAMPION v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  The question for the Court to address is not whether all the elements of the test set out in Al-Khawaja and Tahery have been met, but rather whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see, for a similar approach, Campion v. Ireland (dec.) [Committee], no. 29276/17, § 30, 10 October 2017).
• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit Hooligans

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  35553/12 and 2 others, § 74, 22 October 2018).
• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with further references, and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 64, 15 December 2016).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 30194/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  In view of the aforementioned, the Court considers it sufficiently established that, notwithstanding the short duration of the applicant's time in administrative detention, the effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question, including an element of coercion, were indicative of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, § 50, 21 June 2011, and Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 59135/09, § 82, 7 May 2015, where applicants were brought to police stations and were not free to leave for about forty-five minutes and three hours and thirty minutes, respectively).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  The Court reiterates its established case-law to the effect that Article 5 § 1 may also apply to deprivations of liberty of a very short length (see, among many authorities, M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 190, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  In view of the aforementioned, the Court considers it sufficiently established that, notwithstanding the short duration of the applicant's time in administrative detention, the effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question, including an element of coercion, were indicative of a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, § 50, 21 June 2011, and Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan, no. 59135/09, § 82, 7 May 2015, where applicants were brought to police stations and were not free to leave for about forty-five minutes and three hours and thirty minutes, respectively).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 22965/06

  ZHULIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  In the light of the prominent place that the right to liberty has in a democratic society, the Court has so far rejected the application of the "no significant disadvantage" admissibility criterion in relation to complaints under Article 5 of the Convention (see Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, §§ 33-39, 19 July 2011; Sýkora v. the Czech Republic, no. 23419/07, § 56, 22 November 2012; Bannikov v. Latvia, no. 19279/03, § 58, 11 June 2013; Lagunov v. Russia [Committee], no. 40025/10, § 13, 1 March 2016; and Zhulin v. Russia [Committee], no. 22965/06, § 15, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 40025/10

  LAGUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  In the light of the prominent place that the right to liberty has in a democratic society, the Court has so far rejected the application of the "no significant disadvantage" admissibility criterion in relation to complaints under Article 5 of the Convention (see Van Velden v. the Netherlands, no. 30666/08, §§ 33-39, 19 July 2011; Sýkora v. the Czech Republic, no. 23419/07, § 56, 22 November 2012; Bannikov v. Latvia, no. 19279/03, § 58, 11 June 2013; Lagunov v. Russia [Committee], no. 40025/10, § 13, 1 March 2016; and Zhulin v. Russia [Committee], no. 22965/06, § 15, 18 October 2016).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 14920/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 65367/16

  Since 21 June 2007 Article 259 of the Code, which provided for the right to lodge an appeal against administrative detention with a higher-ranking institution or prosecutor (see Djundiks v. Latvia, no. 14920/05, § 37, 15 April 2014) has no longer been in force.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• LG Frankfurt/Main, 11.05.2023 - 5 O 89/22
  Nach der Entscheidung des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 22.9.2020 - II ZR 399/18 - (BeckRS 2020, 27305) ist dies formal zu interpretieren, d.h. es kommt im Umkehrschluss zu dieser Entscheidung auf die abstrakte Möglichkeit an, mit der Folge, dass ein beherrschender Einfluss nur angenommen werden kann, wenn eine Beteiligung von über 50 % gegeben ist.