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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  At the outset the Court reiterates that the Convention does not as such guarantee a right to have criminal proceedings instituted against third parties (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I).
• 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, 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, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  Thus, the investigation into serious allegations of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention must be thorough and the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 107-108, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 50774/99

  SCIACCA c. ITALIE
• 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, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA
• 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).