Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GLOWACKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 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 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Glowacki v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  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 depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-IX, § 91).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

  GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  These arrangements, intended to prevent escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).

• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or to debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II, § 48).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 7870/04

  BAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  The Court firstly reiterates that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial", as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been set out in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudla, cited above, § 110 et seq., and Bak v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 56-65, 16 January 2007).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  These arrangements, intended to prevent escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
• EGMR, 20.01.2016 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  The Court agrees that strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime (see Iwanczuk v. Poland, no 25196/94, 15 November 2001, § 59).
• EGMR, 22.12.2004 - 40063/98

  MITEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  Accordingly, given that where an accused person is detained for two or more separate periods pending trial, the reasonable time guarantee of Article 5 § 3 requires a global assessment of the cumulative period (see, among other authorities, Mitev v. Bulgaria, no. 40063/98, 22 December 2004, § 102, with further references), the period to be taken into consideration amounts to seven months.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 30, 18 October 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-..., § 179; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR-2006-..., § 115 et seq., with further references).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of dangerous detainee status are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 15212/03

  CHARZYNSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 9635/13

  DEJNEK v. POLAND

  In a number of cases against Poland concerning imposition of the dangerous detainee regime the Court rejected the Government's argument that the applicants should have had recourse to a claim for the protection of personal rights (see, for example, Głowacki v. Poland, no. 1608/08, §§ 60-63, 30 October 2012, Chyła v. Poland, no. 8384/08, § 69, 3 November 2015 and Klibisz v. Poland, no. 2235/02, §§ 301-302, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 2235/02

  [ENG]

  In consequence, the Court does not consider that, after these appeals were dismissed (see paragraphs 142 and 220 above), he should, in order to fulfil his obligation under Article 35 § 1, have also brought a civil action under Article 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code (see Głowacki v. Poland, no. 1608/08, § 61, 30 October 2012).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  CHYLA v. POLAND

  In consequence, the Court does not consider that, once these appeals had been dismissed, he should also have been required, in order to fulfil his obligation under Article 35 § 1, to bring a civil action under Article 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code (see Głowacki v. Poland, no. 1608/08, §§ 60-63, 30 October 2012).

• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 13621/08

  HORYCH ET 4 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  1608/08.
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 39496/17

  BECHTA v. POLAND

  In a number of cases against Poland concerning imposition of the dangerous detainee regime the Court has rejected the Government's argument that the applicants should have had recourse to a claim for the protection of personal rights (see, for example, Głowacki v. Poland, no. 1608/08, §§ 60-63, 30 October 2012; Chyła v. Poland, no. 8384/08, § 69, 3 November 2015; and Klibisz v. Poland, no. 2235/02, §§ 301-302, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 31806/17

  FILAS v. POLAND

  The Court firstly notes that in a number of cases against Poland concerning imposition of the dangerous detainee regime the Court has rejected the Government's argument that the applicants should have had recourse to a claim for the protection of personal rights (see, for example, Głowacki v. Poland, no. 1608/08, §§ 60-63, 30 October 2012; Chyła v. Poland, no. 8384/08, § 69, 3 November 2015; and Klibisz v. Poland, no. 2235/02, §§ 301-302, 4 October 2016).
• VG Schwerin, 22.10.2010 - 8 A 2429/06

  Zuerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft nach AufenthG § 60 Abs 1 wegen glaubhafter …

  Sie sind seit 1998 miteinander verheiratet und haben drei in Deutschland geborene Kinder: (geb 1999)und, (geb. 2000) (Klägerinnen im Verfahren 8 A 2428/06 As) sowie (geb. 2007; Kläger des Verfahrens 8 A 1608/08 As).
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 47800/17

  LENCZUK v. POLAND

  In a number of cases against Poland concerning the imposition of the dangerous detainee regime, the Court has rejected the Government's argument that the applicants should have had recourse to a claim for the protection of personal rights (see, for example, Głowacki v. Poland, no. 1608/08, §§ 60-63, 30 October 2012; Chyła v. Poland, no. 8384/08, § 69, 3 November 2015; and Klibisz v. Poland no. 2235/02, §§ 301-302, 4 October 2016).