Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZIVULINSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.10.1995 - 15963/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  The Court recalls that the aim of this provision is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings which have been concluded by a final decision (Gradinger v. Austria, judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 65, § 53).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.1994 - 16034/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  Nor is the Court called upon to examine whether arguments are adequately met (Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, §§ 59-61).

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  In addition, the Court recalls that there can be no restrictions which impair the very essence of the right to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, such as a disproportionate financial burden upon an individual to bring a claim for damages against the State (Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, §§ 52-67, ECHR 2001-VI), or the State's reluctance to enforce a final court judgment in an individual's favour (Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 34-38, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 35382/97

  COMINGERSOLL S.A. v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  Whilst the principal form of redress in civil proceedings is normally compensation for pecuniary damage, an individual should also be able to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage where the breach of the rights enshrined in domestic law has been recognised by the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Comingersoll SA v. Portugal [GC], no. 35382/97, § 35, 6 April 2000).
• EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 41211/98

  IOVCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  In particular, the Court must have regard to the state of health of the detainee (Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 127, 2 February 2006).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 59304/00

  JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  However, it does not appear that the applicant specifically contested the lawfulness of the search during the administrative proceedings concerning the penalty of 7 February 2002, nor did he bring a separate court action in this respect (Jankauskas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 59304/00, 5 December 2003).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 53254/99

  AFFAIRES KARALEVICIUS ET SAVENKOVAS CONTRE LA LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  The relevant data must be viewed in the context of the applicable prison regime, daytime space being afforded more weight when a detainee enjoys wide freedom of movement on prison premises (see Karalevicius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, 7 April 2005, § 36; Valasinas, cited above, §§ 103-106).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 47922/99

  GANUSAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  Moreover, Article 6 is not applicable to parole proceedings as they do not involve the determination of a criminal charge, or civil right or obligation (Ganusauskas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen