Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 40087/14 |
Anhängiges Verfahren
Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)
- spiegel.de (Pressemeldung zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 30.03.2015)
Sicherungsverwahrung nach Jugendstrafe: Straßburger Richter prüfen Fall des Maskenmörders
- augsburger-allgemeine.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 01.12.2017)
Vanessas Mörder könnte bald freikommen
- augsburger-allgemeine.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 27.02.2017)
Maskenmord an Vanessa schlägt noch immer Wellen
Vor Ergehen der Entscheidung:
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
M.W. v. GERMANY
Verfahrensgang
- LG Augsburg, 05.02.2003 - Jug KLs 401 Js 107041/02
- LG Augsburg, 24.01.2012 - Jug KLs 401 Js 107041/02
- LG Augsburg, 22.02.2012 - Jug KLs 401 Js 107041/02
- LG Augsburg, 16.07.2012 - Jug KLs 401 Js 107041/02
- LG Augsburg, 15.11.2012 - Jug KLs 401 Js 107041/02
- BVerfG, 05.12.2013 - 2 BvR 2062/13
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 40087/14
- EGMR - 40087/14 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- BVerfG, 04.05.2011 - 2 BvR 2365/09
Regelungen zur Sicherungsverwahrung verfassungswidrig
Auszug aus EGMR - 40087/14
On 4 May 2011 the Federal Constitutional Court delivered a leading judgment concerning the retrospective prolongation of the complainants" preventive detention beyond the former ten-year maximum period and also concerning the retrospective order for a complainant's preventive detention under Article 66b § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 7 § 2 of the Juvenile Courts Act (file nos. 2 BvR 2365/09, 2 BvR 740/10, 2 BvR 2333/08, 2 BvR 1152/10 and 2 BvR 571/10). - EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 7345/12
GLIEN v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR - 40087/14
In particular, having regard to the Court's case-law in the case of M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009) and a number of follow-up cases (see, in particular, Kallweit v. Germany, no. 17792/07, 13 January 2011; O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, 24 November 2011; Kronfeldner v. Germany, no. 21906/09, 19 January 2012; and Glien v. Germany, no. 7345/12, 28 November 2013), did that deprivation of liberty fall within any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1? And were the applicant's conditions of detention adapted during the relevant period so as to take account of the fact that he was considered as suffering from a mental disorder?. - EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 21906/09
KRONFELDNER v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR - 40087/14
In particular, having regard to the Court's case-law in the case of M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009) and a number of follow-up cases (see, in particular, Kallweit v. Germany, no. 17792/07, 13 January 2011; O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, 24 November 2011; Kronfeldner v. Germany, no. 21906/09, 19 January 2012; and Glien v. Germany, no. 7345/12, 28 November 2013), did that deprivation of liberty fall within any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1? And were the applicant's conditions of detention adapted during the relevant period so as to take account of the fact that he was considered as suffering from a mental disorder?. - EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 4646/08
O.H. ./. Deutschland
Auszug aus EGMR - 40087/14
In particular, having regard to the Court's case-law in the case of M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009) and a number of follow-up cases (see, in particular, Kallweit v. Germany, no. 17792/07, 13 January 2011; O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, 24 November 2011; Kronfeldner v. Germany, no. 21906/09, 19 January 2012; and Glien v. Germany, no. 7345/12, 28 November 2013), did that deprivation of liberty fall within any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1? And were the applicant's conditions of detention adapted during the relevant period so as to take account of the fact that he was considered as suffering from a mental disorder?. - EGMR, 17.12.2014 - 19359/04
Sicherungsverwahrung
Auszug aus EGMR - 40087/14
In particular, having regard to the Court's case-law in the case of M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009) and a number of follow-up cases (see, in particular, Kallweit v. Germany, no. 17792/07, 13 January 2011; O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, 24 November 2011; Kronfeldner v. Germany, no. 21906/09, 19 January 2012; and Glien v. Germany, no. 7345/12, 28 November 2013), did that deprivation of liberty fall within any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1? And were the applicant's conditions of detention adapted during the relevant period so as to take account of the fact that he was considered as suffering from a mental disorder?.