Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion) Violation of Art. 8 in respect of control of correspondence with the Commission and with lawyer No violation of Art. 8 in respect of other correspondence Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.08.1999 - 37328/97
• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 37328/97
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

  The relevant principles as to exhaustion of domestic remedies have been set out in inter alia the Court's judgment of 28 July 1999 in the case of Selmouni v. France (no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999-V): The purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention 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 Convention institutions.
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

  In particular, its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (cf. Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 97).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

  On this point, the Court recalls that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy, which is not obviously futile, is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (cf. Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, p. 18, § 37).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

  Mr Gebhardt drew the Director's attention to the Court's judgment of 25 February 1992 in the case of Campbell v. the United Kingdom (Series A no. 233).

• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14

  LEBOIS v. BULGARIA

  If telephone facilities are, however, made available, they may, again in view of the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment, also be subject to restrictions (see A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92-93, 29 January 2002; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010; and Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33729/18

  BADULESCU c. PORTUGAL

  À supposer que la limitation du nombre d'appels téléphoniques auxquels le requérant avait droit puisse être considérée comme une restriction constitutive d'une ingérence dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie familiale ou de la correspondance, la Cour estime qu'elle peut se justifier à la lumière du second paragraphe de l'article 8. À cet égard, il y a lieu de tenir compte notamment de la nécessité de partager les postes téléphoniques entre l'ensemble des détenus (A.B. c. Pays-Bas, no 37328/97, §§ 92-94, 29 janvier 2002, et Voyevodin et autres c. Russie (déc.), nos 6558/18 et 9 autres, § 18, 10 septembre 2019).
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 6558/18

  VOYEVODIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that, in respect of telephone access, Article 8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing prisoners the right to make telephone calls, in particular where the facilities for contact by way of correspondence are available and adequate (see A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, § 92, 29 January 2002; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.