Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TOTH v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  In addition, it is the Court's established jurisprudence that the second and third criteria laid down in Engel are alternative and not necessarily cumulative: for Article 6 to be held applicable, it suffices that the offence in question is by its nature to be regarded as "criminal" from the point of view of the Convention, or that the offence made the person liable to a sanction which, by its nature and degree of severity, belongs in general to the "criminal" sphere (see Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73, § 54, and Lutz v. Germany, 25 August 1987, Series A no. 123, § 55).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  The notion of "penal procedure" in the text of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 must also be interpreted in the light of the general principles concerning the corresponding words "criminal charge" and "penalty" in Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention respectively (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, § 52, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  The Court has already held that the "Engel" criteria apply in the prison context in connection with the disciplinary punishment of prisoners (see Campbell and Fell, v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, §§ 68-69, Series A no. 80, and Ezeh and Connors, cited above, §§ 83-85).

• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  This does not exclude that a cumulative approach may be adopted where separate analysis of each criterion does not make it possible to reach a clear conclusion as to the existence of a criminal charge (see Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, § 47; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 56; Garyfallou AEBE v. Greece, 24 September 1997, Reports 1997-V, § 33; and Lauko v. Slovakia, 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, § 57).
• EKMR, 11.12.1976 - 7341/76

  EGGS v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  The former Commission and the Court have also examined the question whether a punishment which does not extend the prisoner's prison term in military or prison context could be regarded as a "criminal charge" (see Eggs v. Switzerland, no. 7341/76, Commission decision of 4 March 1978, where the applicant was punished with five days of solitary confinement; X v. Switzerland, no. 8778/79, Commission decision of 8 July 1980, where the applicant was punished with three days of solitary confinement; P. v. France, no. 11691/85, Commission decision of 10 October 1986, where the applicant was punished with twelve days of solitary confinement; J.U. v. France, no. 20978/92, Commission decision of 21 October 1993, where the applicant was punished with thirty-one days of solitary confinement; and Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, §§ 55 and 56, 8 November 2007, where the applicant was punished with seven days of solitary confinement, which punishment was to be implemented only if the applicant committed another disciplinary offence within three months).
• EKMR, 08.07.1980 - 8778/79

  X. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  The former Commission and the Court have also examined the question whether a punishment which does not extend the prisoner's prison term in military or prison context could be regarded as a "criminal charge" (see Eggs v. Switzerland, no. 7341/76, Commission decision of 4 March 1978, where the applicant was punished with five days of solitary confinement; X v. Switzerland, no. 8778/79, Commission decision of 8 July 1980, where the applicant was punished with three days of solitary confinement; P. v. France, no. 11691/85, Commission decision of 10 October 1986, where the applicant was punished with twelve days of solitary confinement; J.U. v. France, no. 20978/92, Commission decision of 21 October 1993, where the applicant was punished with thirty-one days of solitary confinement; and Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, §§ 55 and 56, 8 November 2007, where the applicant was punished with seven days of solitary confinement, which punishment was to be implemented only if the applicant committed another disciplinary offence within three months).
• EKMR, 21.10.1993 - 20978/92

  J.U. contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  The former Commission and the Court have also examined the question whether a punishment which does not extend the prisoner's prison term in military or prison context could be regarded as a "criminal charge" (see Eggs v. Switzerland, no. 7341/76, Commission decision of 4 March 1978, where the applicant was punished with five days of solitary confinement; X v. Switzerland, no. 8778/79, Commission decision of 8 July 1980, where the applicant was punished with three days of solitary confinement; P. v. France, no. 11691/85, Commission decision of 10 October 1986, where the applicant was punished with twelve days of solitary confinement; J.U. v. France, no. 20978/92, Commission decision of 21 October 1993, where the applicant was punished with thirty-one days of solitary confinement; and Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, §§ 55 and 56, 8 November 2007, where the applicant was punished with seven days of solitary confinement, which punishment was to be implemented only if the applicant committed another disciplinary offence within three months).
• EGMR, 10.10.1986 - 11691/85

  P. contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49635/10

  The former Commission and the Court have also examined the question whether a punishment which does not extend the prisoner's prison term in military or prison context could be regarded as a "criminal charge" (see Eggs v. Switzerland, no. 7341/76, Commission decision of 4 March 1978, where the applicant was punished with five days of solitary confinement; X v. Switzerland, no. 8778/79, Commission decision of 8 July 1980, where the applicant was punished with three days of solitary confinement; P. v. France, no. 11691/85, Commission decision of 10 October 1986, where the applicant was punished with twelve days of solitary confinement; J.U. v. France, no. 20978/92, Commission decision of 21 October 1993, where the applicant was punished with thirty-one days of solitary confinement; and Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, §§ 55 and 56, 8 November 2007, where the applicant was punished with seven days of solitary confinement, which punishment was to be implemented only if the applicant committed another disciplinary offence within three months).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 48298/13

  SUBINSKI v. SLOVENIA

  While that sanction certainly amounted to an aggravation of the conditions of the applicant's pre-trial detention, albeit for a limited period, the Court has already found that measures constituting a mere aggravation of the conditions of detention, as opposed to those extending it, did not suffice to bring the disciplinary proceedings in question within the sphere of being "criminal" within the meaning of the Convention (see Toth v. Croatia (dec.), no. 49635/10, § 37, 6 November 2012, and the references therein).