Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELDENRIJK-RAAT AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 6, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  (c) In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see, among other authorities, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-IX, and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 56, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  (a) 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/or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among many authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161; Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 55, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VIII; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 100, ECHR 1999-V; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 180, ECHR 2005-IV; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 95, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  (b) 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 (see, among many other authorities, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 94, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 113, ECHR 2001-III; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 55, 19 May 2004; and Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 177, ECHR 2005-IX).

• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  (d) Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 70, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  More generally, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 28743/03

  MELNITCHOUK c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  More generally, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 994/03

  CORNELIS c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 1813/09

  More generally, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I; and Cornelis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 994/03, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)), as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, among many other authorities, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C; and Melnychuk v. Ukraine (dec), no. 28743/03, ECHR 2005-IX).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 577/11

  HET FINANCIEELE DAGBLAD B.v. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  More generally, and in relation to all these complaints, the Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts, as it is not a court of appeal - or, as is sometimes said, a "fourth instance" - from these courts (see, as a recent authority, Seldenrijk-Raat and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 1813/09, 22 February 2011, with further references).