Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLACÌ v. ITALY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Adversarial trial Equality of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PLACÌ v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Placì v. Italy

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PLACÌ v. ITALY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 17214/05

  Savino ./. Italien / Persichetti ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  It therefore rejects the applicant's claims under that head (see Savino and Others v. Italy, nos. 17214/05, 20329/05 and 42113/04, § 111, 28 April 2009, and Higgins and Others v. France, 19 February 1998, § 48, Reports 1998-I).
• EGMR, 14.06.2017 - 44769/07

  SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME THALEIA KARYDI AXTE CONTRE LA GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  The Court reiterates that the role of Article 6 § 1 in relation to Article 13 is that of a lex specialis, the requirements of Article 13 being subsumed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece, no. 44769/07, § 29, 5 November 2009; Dauti v. Albania, no. 19206/05, § 58; 3 February 2009; Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, § 55, 29 July 2010; and Curmi v. Malta, no. 2243/10, § 58, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 2243/10

  CURMI v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  The Court reiterates that the role of Article 6 § 1 in relation to Article 13 is that of a lex specialis, the requirements of Article 13 being subsumed by the more stringent requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Société Anonyme Thaleia Karydi Axte v. Greece, no. 44769/07, § 29, 5 November 2009; Dauti v. Albania, no. 19206/05, § 58; 3 February 2009; Jafarli and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 36079/06, § 55, 29 July 2010; and Curmi v. Malta, no. 2243/10, § 58, 22 November 2011).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  The purpose of Article 35 § 1 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, inter alia, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94 § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  While such concerns may have a certain importance, they are not decisive: what is decisive is whether the doubts raised by appearances can be held to be objectively justified (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, Series A no. 211, p. 21, § 44).
• EGMR, 19.04.2007 - 63235/00

  VILHO ESKELINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  Lastly, although not relied upon by the Government, the Court observes that, in the present circumstances no issue arises as to the applicability of Article 6 on the basis of the applicant's status as a military conscript, given that he had access to court under national law (see Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  Moreover, an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  These measures should provide effective protection, in particular, of vulnerable persons, such as military conscripts, and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, §§ 67-72, 17 June 2008, and, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  Such rules must require the adoption of practical measures aimed at the effective protection of conscripts against the dangers inherent in military life and appropriate procedures for identifying shortcomings and errors liable to be committed in that regard by those in charge at different levels (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 50, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 34449/03

  SHULEPOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 48754/11

  Thus, the Court observes that it was not required to give general advice on a particular subject, but rather was called upon to make findings on specific facts and to assess the performance of colleagues in the military with the aim of assisting the CS in determining the question of the military's responsibility, which could have led to the applicant being awarded compensation (see, similarly, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir, cited above, § 51, and Shulepova v. Russia, no. 34449/03, § 65, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 24427/02

  KAYANKIN v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 7183/11

  LETINCIC v. CROATIA

  What it requires, however, is that the requirement of neutrality on the part of an appointed expert is observed, that the court proceedings comply with the adversarial principle and that the applicant be placed on a par with his or her adversary, namely the State, in accordance with the principle of equality of arms (see Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir, cited above, § 47; and Placì v. Italy, no. 48754/11, § 79, 21 January 2014).
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 6341/10

  SARIDAS c. TURQUIE

  La Cour considère que, dans les circonstances de la cause, aucune question ne se pose quant à l'applicabilité de l'article 6 § 1 sur la base du statut du requérant en tant que conscrit bon pour le service militaire, étant donné qu'il a eu accès à un tribunal en vertu du droit national (Vilho Eskelinen et autres c. Finlande [GC], no 63235/00, §§ 62-63, CEDH 2007-II, voir aussi Placì c. Italie, no 48754/11, § 67, 21 janvier 2014).