Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,25326
EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,25326)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.09.2013 - 29343/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,25326)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. September 2013 - 29343/10 (https://dejure.org/2013,25326)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,25326) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    EPISTATU v. ROMANIA

    Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10
    The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that given the practical demands of imprisonment his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10
    The Court reiterates that under Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that given the practical demands of imprisonment his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

    NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10
    The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41 it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

    BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10
    The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41 it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
  • EKMR, 13.03.1975 - 5962/72

    X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 29343/10
    46506/99, 46569/99, 46570/99 and 46939/99, 4 September 2001; Natoli v. Italy [decision], no. 26161/95; X. v. the United Kingdom [decision], no. 5962/72; and Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI, the Government contended that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was not applicable to the applicant's case, given that the domestic legal requirements in respect of prison education were not met in the absence of the required minimum number of students.
  • EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 16032/07

    VELYO VELEV c. BULGARIE

    Bien que la Cour soit consciente des recommandations du Comité des Ministres selon lesquelles des possibilités d'éducation doivent être offertes à tous les détenus (paragraphes 21-24 ci-dessus), elle rappelle que l'article 2 du Protocole no 1 n'impose pas aux États contractants l'obligation de prévoir de telles possibilités pour les détenus lorsqu'elles n'existent pas encore (Natoli c. Italie, no 26161/95, décision de la Commission du 18 mai 1998, non publiée, et Epistatu c. Roumanie, no 29343/10, § 63, 24 septembre 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht