Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRAJCE STOJANOVSKI v. \

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1-e Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.09.2008 - 1431/03
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 1431/03

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  The Court reiterates that the lawfulness of detention presupposes conformity with the domestic law in the first place and also, as confirmed by Article 18, conformity with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 of the Convention (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33 and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  The domestic court noted that the applicant had visited his village in August 2003, but did not find that he had demonstrated any hostility or aggression (see, a contrario, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 14, Series A no. 50, where each time the applicant was released, he yielded to impulse and committed further offences).

 
• EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 26629/95

  WITOLD LITWA c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  The 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 (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  There was no evidence before the court of a risk that the applicant would reoffend if released (see, a contrario, X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 23, Series A no. 46, where the applicant was recalled to the medical institution upon a complaint by his wife that he had threatened her).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  In addition, there was no indication in the hospital's reports that the applicant was still aggressive or would present, if released, a risk to the public (see, a contrario, Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 19, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  In this connection, the Court recalls that in deciding whether an individual should be detained as a "person of unsound mind", the national authorities are to be recognised as having a certain margin of appreciation since it is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, § 27, Series A no. 75).
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 1431/03

  The Court reiterates that the lawfulness of detention presupposes conformity with the domestic law in the first place and also, as confirmed by Article 18, conformity with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 of the Convention (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33 and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2004-IX).

• BVerfG, 04.05.2011 - 2 BvR 2365/09

  Regelungen zur Sicherungsverwahrung verfassungswidrig

  (3) Nach alledem kommt eine konventionsrechtliche Rechtfertigung der Freiheitsentziehung in den hier in Rede stehenden Fällen praktisch nur unter den Voraussetzungen von Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Buchstabe e EMRK in Betracht (vgl. zum Verhältnis von Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Buchstabe a zu Buchstabe e EMRK unter anderem EGMR…, Urteil vom 5. November 1981, Beschwerde-Nr. 7215/75, X. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Rn. 39 und Rn. 46 f.; Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2009, Beschwerde-Nr. 1431/03, Stojanovski ./. Ehemalige Jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien, Rn. 30;… Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2009, Beschwerde-Nr. 19359/04, M. ./. Deutschland, Rn. 103).

  Bei der Beurteilung der Frage, ob das Erfordernis der psychischen Störung im Sinne von Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Buchstabe e EMRK und ihrer Fortdauer erfüllt ist, besitzen die Mitgliedstaaten zudem einen Beurteilungsspielraum ("margin of appreciation") (vgl. zuletzt EGMR, Urteil vom 22. Oktober 2009, Beschwerde-Nr. 1431/03, Stojanovski ./. Ehemalige Jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien, Rn. 34 m.w.N.).

• OLG Karlsruhe, 14.01.2014 - 2 Ws 284/13

  Fortdauer der Unterbringung in der Sicherungsverwahrung: Absehen von der …

  Bei der Beurteilung der Frage, ob das Erfordernis der psychischen Störung im Sinne von Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Buchstabe e EMRK und ihrer Fortdauer erfüllt ist, besitzen die Mitgliedstaaten zudem einen Beurteilungsspielraum ("margin of appreciation") (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 22.10.2009, Beschwerde-Nr. 1431/03, Stojanovski ./. Ehemalige Jugoslawische Republik Mazedonien, Rn. 34 m.w.N.).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4570/07

  TRAMPEVSKI v.

  Having regard to the fee note submitted by the applicant, the Court finds that only EUR 340 related to lawyer's fees which were expended with a view to seeking prevention before the national courts of the violation found by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoimenov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 17995/02, § 56, 5 April 2007, and Trajce Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 1431/03, § 46, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 4650/06

  BAJALDZIEV v.

  Under the Court's case-law, the legality review request is not an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention that applicants are required to exhaust (see Trajce Stojanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 1431/03, 16 September 2008 and Dimitrovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 21466/03, 30 September 2008, in which the public prosecutor rejected the applicants" applications that the legality review request be submitted to the Supreme Court).