Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=17.04.2014&Aktenzeichen=50264/08
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 06:35:11
Document Index: 635189810

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 8', '§ 4', '§ 74', '§ 1', '§ 45', '§ 104', '§ 30', '§ 98', '§ 1', '§ 85', '§ 4', '§ 82', '§ 212', '§ 53', '§ 104']

EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2014,7220
EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 50264/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,7220)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.04.2014 - 50264/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,7220)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. April 2014 - 50264/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,7220)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,7220) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority) Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
While Article 5 § 4 entitles detained persons to institute proceedings for a review of compliance with the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness", in Convention terms, of their deprivation of liberty (see, for example, M.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 11577/06, § 74, 22 October 2013), Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention affords, inter alia, procedural safeguards related to the judicial decisions authorising an applicant's involuntary hospitalisation (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33, and Rudenko v. Ukraine, no. 50264/08, § 104, 17 April 2014).
The Court reiterates that Article 5 of the Convention is, together with Articles 2, 3 and 4, in the first rank of the fundamental rights that protect the physical security of an individual and as such its importance in a democratic society is paramount (see, amongst others, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 30, ECHR 2006-X, and Rudenko v. Ukraine, no. 50264/08, § 98, 17 April 2014).
However, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case and having regard to the substance of the applicant's complaint, the Court considers it appropriate to examine this complaint under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention only (see Anatoliy Rudenko v. Ukraine, no. 50264/08, § 85, 17 April 2014).
The applicant argued that his situation was analogous to the situation found to constitute a violation of Article 5 § 4 in the case of Anatoliy Rudenko v. Ukraine (no. 50264/08, § 82, 17 April 2014).
This position is supported by the fact that hospitalisation in a specialised medical institution frequently results in an interference with an individual's private life and physical integrity through medical interventions against the individual's will (X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 212, 3 July 2012; Zagidulina v. Russia, no. 11737/06, § 53, 2 May 2013; and Anatoliy Rudenko v. Ukraine, no. 50264/08, § 104, 17 April 2014).