Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MITKUS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-3 - Rights of defence Article 6-3-d - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mitkus v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03
• EGMR, 10.01.2018 - 7259/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 41205/98

  TAMMER v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  In this regard the Court has observed that the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 62, ECHR 2001-I, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  While the impact of his absence on his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention will be dealt with below (see paragraphs 107-115), for the purposes of the present analysis the Court has some doubts whether the applicant was able to have "a full adversarial hearing on [his] allegations of negligence" (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  In particular in cases concerning newspaper publications, the Court has previously held that the protection of private life has to be balanced, among other things, against the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 26, 28 April 2009; Armoniene, cited above, § 39; and Biriuk, cited above, § 38).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  While the impact of his absence on his right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention will be dealt with below (see paragraphs 107-115), for the purposes of the present analysis the Court has some doubts whether the applicant was able to have "a full adversarial hearing on [his] allegations of negligence" (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  In this regard the Court has observed that the press must not overstep certain bounds, particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others and the need to prevent the disclosure of confidential information (see Tammer v. Estonia, no. 41205/98, § 62, ECHR 2001-I, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 49, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 11796/85

  WIESINGER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  In addition the Court notes that, as it has held on many occasions before, failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law does not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Estrikh, cited above, § 138, and Wiesinger v. Austria, 30 October 1991, § 60, Series A no. 213).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  The Court has frequently held that the obligation to investigate, which stems from Articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, "is not an obligation of results, but of means" (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 20511/03

  I v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  The Court has previously held that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which encompasses, inter alia, personal information relating to a patient (see I. v. Finland, no. 20511/03, § 35, 17 July 2008; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 35, 25 November 2008; and Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 34, 25 November 2008) as well as a person's name and photograph (see Von Hannover v. Germany, no. 59320/00, §§ 50 and 53, ECHR 2004-VI).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  As regards the applicant's argument that the period of inactivity in the first-instance court had breached the time-limit provided for in Article 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 54 above), the Government noted that a failure to abide by the time-limit prescribed by domestic law did not in itself contravene Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 159, ECHR 2006-III (extracts), and Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 138, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 50774/99

  SCIACCA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  Unlike in similar cases decided by the Court (Sciacca v. Italy, no. 50774/99, ECHR 2005-I, and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, 23 October 2008), here the applicant's private data had not been released to the press by State authorities.
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36919/02

  ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  BIRIUK v. LITHUANIA

• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

  In any event, the Court notes that an ordinary medical check-up does not suffice to reveal chronic hepatitis, and that the disease can remain asymptomatic for extended periods of time (see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 68, 2 October 2012).