Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HACIOGLU v. ROMANIA

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  In view of the need for that right to be practical and effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided (see Kamasinski v. Austria, no. 9783/82, § 74, 19 December 1989; Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no. 13205/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  According to the case-law, the latter are best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses and the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B, and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).

• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  This means that an accused who cannot understand or speak the language used in court has the right to the free assistance of an interpreter for the translation or interpretation of all those documents or statements in the proceedings instituted against him which it is necessary for him to understand or to have rendered into the court's language in order to have the benefit of a fair trial (see, for example, Hermi v. Italy, 18114/02, §§ 69-70).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  HUSAIN c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  This suggests that oral linguistic assistance may satisfy the requirements of the Convention (see Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 17.05.2001 - 31540/96

  GÜNGÖR c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  The fact remains, however, that the interpretation assistance provided should be such as to enable the defendant to have knowledge of the case against him and to defend himself, notably by being able to put before the court his version of the events (see Güngör v. Germany (dec.), no. 31540/96, 17 May 2001).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 13205/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  In view of the need for that right to be practical and effective, the obligation of the competent authorities is not limited to the appointment of an interpreter but, if they are put on notice in the particular circumstances, may also extend to a degree of subsequent control over the adequacy of the interpretation provided (see Kamasinski v. Austria, no. 9783/82, § 74, 19 December 1989; Diallo v. Sweden (dec.), no. 13205/07, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 30400/02

  BAKA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  In this respect it is important to note that he lodged an appeal and an appeal on points of law against the judicial decisions convicting him, raising specific complaints, and therefore it does not appear that he had not been aware of their content or that he had been unable to exercise his defence rights by exhausting all available domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Baka v. Romania, no. 30400/02, § 76, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding the conditions of detention and the medical care of detainees (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, §§ 75-77, 4 October 2005).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 2573/03

  It also reiterates that for the general conditions of detention, in particular the alleged overcrowding, the applicant could not be required at the material time to have recourse to any remedy (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, and Solovyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 76114/01, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 4792/03

  PETREA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.06.2007 - 12066/02

  CIORAP v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 12535/04

  ARTIMENCO c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 74785/01

  NASTASE-SILIVESTRU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 76114/01

  SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 59868/08

  VIZGIRDA c. SLOVÉNIE

  In a number of cases in which, before the Court, the applicants essentially complained about the need for interpretation or the quality thereof, the Court dismissed the complaints, relying, inter alia, on the fact that the applicants had not raised the issue during the trial and/or had not objected to the content of the minutes (see, for example, Berisha and Haljiti v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 18670, 10 April 2007; Hacioglu v. Romania, no. 2573/03, 11 January 2011; and Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

  ALI CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 120 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  2573/03.
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 19320/07

  BUTIUC ET DUMITROF c. ROUMANIE

  The Court notes that, although the Government did not provide any information about the exact number of inmates in each cell the first applicant had been detained in before 5 February 2010, his allegations of overcrowding are corroborated by the description of facts established by the Court in similar cases where it has found the conditions of detention in Poarta Alba Prison in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Cucolas v. Romania, no. 17044/03, §§ 90 and 94, 26 October 2010, and Hacioglu v. Romania, no. 2573/03, §§ 53-56, 11 January 2011).