Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GALLIANI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 5-1-f No violation of Art. 5-2 Violation of Art. 5-4 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Pecuniary damage - claim ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage, which could have been sustained by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 87-89, 29 January 2008; Zeciri v. Italy, no. 55764/00, § 56, 4 August 2005; Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, § 107, 19 December 2002; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 76, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 19.12.2002 - 35489/97

  SALAPA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage, which could have been sustained by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 87-89, 29 January 2008; Zeciri v. Italy, no. 55764/00, § 56, 4 August 2005; Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, § 107, 19 December 2002; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 76, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 04.08.2005 - 55764/00

  ZECIRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself a sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage, which could have been sustained by the applicant (see, mutatis mutandis, Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, §§ 87-89, 29 January 2008; Zeciri v. Italy, no. 55764/00, § 56, 4 August 2005; Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, § 107, 19 December 2002; Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 76, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 23, § 54; Chahal, cited above, p. 1864, § 118; and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Therefore, it concludes that the remedy does not relate to the breaches alleged and is not sufficiently certain in practice, lacking thus the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; the applicant was therefore dispensed from making use of it (see, among other authorities, Navarra v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Series A no. 273-B, p. 27, § 24, and Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the Convention refers essentially to the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, among other authorities, Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 23, § 54; Chahal, cited above, p. 1864, § 118; and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 38-39, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty, it must be sufficiently accessible and precise in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 850-51, § 50, and Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 55, ECHR 2001-II).
• KAG Freiburg, 10.12.2010 - 10/09

  Kostentragungspflicht der DCV als Dienstgeber für die durch die Teilnahme an …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  10/09/2008.
• EGMR, 02.03.2004 - 48102/99

  SABIN POPESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  The relevant provisions of Law no. 29/1990 on administrative litigation at the date of the facts are described in Sabin Popescu v. Romania, no. 48102/99, § 46, 2 March 2004.
• EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 12338/02

  HUSSAIN c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2008 - 69273/01

  Nowadays, under Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 as amended by Law no. 56/2007 and Emergency Ordinance no. 55/2007, a decision to expel a foreigner drafted in Romanian and in an international language is served on the person concerned, who may appeal against it before the court of appeal; the expulsion is suspended during the proceedings (see Hussain v. Romania, no. 12338/02, §§ 51-55, 14 February 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 62116/12

  Aufnahmebedingungen, Ungarn, Inhaftierung, Recht auf Freiheit, Abschiebung, …

  Here, the Court reiterates that although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see W?och v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI; Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, § 45, 10 June 2008; Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 44, 26 February 2009; and Longa Yonkeu v. Latvia, no. 57229/09, § 121, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the case the authorities" failure to review without delay the lawfulness of the first applicant's detention deprived, in principle, the review of the requisite effectiveness (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000; Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, §§ 61-62, 10 June 2008; and, most recently, Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 57, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA v. MALTA

  As to the language in which the information was given, the applicant did not specifically claim that he did not understand English or was unable to understand the information given on the bus or to communicate with the officers (see, mutatis mutandis, Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, § 54, 10 June 2008), nor did he claim that he was unable to understand any other language in which the booklet was provided.

• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the case the authorities" failure to review without a delay the lawfulness of the applicant's detention, in principle, deprived the review of the requisite effectiveness (see Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta, no. 35892/97, § 40, 29 June 2000 and Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, §§ 61-62, 10 June 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Kolanis v. the United Kingdom, no. 517/02, § 82, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 57229/09

  [ENG]

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should review whether this law has been complied with (see Galliani v. Romania, no. 69273/01, § 45, 10 June 2008, and Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 44, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 25.05.2016 - 40933/02

  AL-AGHA ET 5 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA ROUMANIE

  69273/01.
• EGMR, 30.03.2010 - 14131/02

  KAYA HASAN c. ROUMANIE ET TURQUIE

  Les dispositions pertinentes de la loi no 25/1969 sur le régime des étrangers sont décrites dans l'arrêt Galliani c. Roumanie (no 69273/01, § 31, 10 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 24895/06

  MARZOHL c. SUISSE

  Pour déterminer si elle a reçu assez d'informations et suffisamment tôt, il faut avoir égard aux particularités de l'espèce (Nowak c. Ukraine, no 60846/10, § 63, 31 mars 2011; Abdolkhani et Karimnia c. Turquie, no 30471/08, § 136, 22 septembre 2009 ; Galliani c. Roumanie, no 69273/01, § 53, 10 juin 2008 ; Murray c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 28 octobre 1994, série A no 300-A, p. 31, § 72).