Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADAMSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  The Court has consistently emphasised that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, 6 April 2000, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  However, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).

  No material has been adduced in the course of the Strasbourg proceedings which could call into question the findings of the domestic authorities and add weight to the applicant's allegations before the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1986, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 30).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  In cases where an individual has an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V, and Egmez v. Cyprus, cited above, § 65).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  The Court reiterates that in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  The Court notes that the aim of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 § 1 is to afford Contracting States an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system before having to answer before an international body for their acts (see, among many other authorities, Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 64, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

  KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04

  Where there is a choice of remedies, the exhaustion requirement must be applied to reflect the practical realities of the applicant's position, so as to ensure the effective protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (see Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, § 43, 5 July 2005).

• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 41192/11

  AMAGHLOBELI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  An applicant who has used a remedy which is apparently effective and sufficient cannot be required also to have tried others that were also available but probably no more likely to be successful (see, amongst many authorities, Adamski v. Poland (dec.), no. 6973/04, 27 January 2009).