Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHYLA v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CHYLA v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  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, 07.07.2015 - 72287/10

  RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  The domestic court focused its examination of the remedy on the question whether the trial court had acted with due diligence within the existing legislative framework whereas the delays in the proceedings may also stem from other factors such as defiant legislative regulations for which the ultimate responsibility lies with the respondent state (see Rutkowski and Others v. Poland, nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, § 184, 7 July 2015).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 24557/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  The Court sees no cause in the circumstances of the present case for departing from the usual principle that the primary responsibility for delays resulting from the provision of expert opinions rests ultimately with the State (see, mutatis mutandis, Capuano v. Italy, 25 June 1987, § 32, Series A no. 119; Musiał v. Poland [GC], no. 24557/94, § 46, ECHR 1999-II).

• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 65653/01

  NITECKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  On the evidence before it, the Court does not find any indication that the medical care provided to the applicant was deficient or below the standard level of health care available to the population generally (see Nitecki v. Poland (dec.), no. 65653/01, 21 March 2002).
• EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 43837/06

  MISIAK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  In essence, they repeated the observations that they had already made in other cases (see, for instance, Lewak v. Poland, no. 218990/03, 6 September 2007, §§ 21-22; Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, 3 June 2008, §§ 15-16; Pasternak v. Poland, 42785/06, 16 July 2009, §§ 24-26; Biśta, cited above, § 26; and Piechowicz, cited above, § 224), maintaining that it had been open to the applicant to obtain redress at domestic level by means of that remedy.
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 1608/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  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, 16.07.2009 - 42785/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  In essence, they repeated the observations that they had already made in other cases (see, for instance, Lewak v. Poland, no. 218990/03, 6 September 2007, §§ 21-22; Misiak v. Poland, no. 43837/06, 3 June 2008, §§ 15-16; Pasternak v. Poland, 42785/06, 16 July 2009, §§ 24-26; Biśta, cited above, § 26; and Piechowicz, cited above, § 224), maintaining that it had been open to the applicant to obtain redress at domestic level by means of that remedy.
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 24426/03

  ALFANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  Having regard to the fact that the applicant was already subjected to several other strict surveillance measures and that the authorities did not rely on any specific or convincing security requirements, the Court considers that the practice of daily strip-searches applied to him for three years and ten months must have diminished his human dignity and caused him feelings of inferiority, anguish and accumulated distress which went beyond the unavoidable suffering and humiliation involved in the imposition of pre-trial detention (see Horych, cited above, § 101, and Piechowicz, cited above, § 176, see and contrast Paolello v. Italy (dec.), 37648/02 and Alfano v. Italy (dec.) 24426/03).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 37648/02

  PAOLELLO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  Having regard to the fact that the applicant was already subjected to several other strict surveillance measures and that the authorities did not rely on any specific or convincing security requirements, the Court considers that the practice of daily strip-searches applied to him for three years and ten months must have diminished his human dignity and caused him feelings of inferiority, anguish and accumulated distress which went beyond the unavoidable suffering and humiliation involved in the imposition of pre-trial detention (see Horych, cited above, § 101, and Piechowicz, cited above, § 176, see and contrast Paolello v. Italy (dec.), 37648/02 and Alfano v. Italy (dec.) 24426/03).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8384/08

  The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and the rules governing other, so-called "preventive measures" (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Bagiński v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006.
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 17584/04

  CELEJEWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 17885/04

  ORCHOWSKI AND 6 OTHER CASES AGAINST POLAND
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 13621/08

  HORYCH v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 33502/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 22807/07

  BISTA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 8363/04

  KLIZA v. POLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

  While the Court accepts the Government's submission that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were complex and of a large scale, it nonetheless considers that neither their complexity nor the fact that they concerned organised crime can justify detention of such length as in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Veliyev v. Russia, no. 24202/05, § 157, 24 June 2010, and Chyła v. Poland, no. 8384/08, §§ 122-23, 3 November 2015).
• 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, 19.04.2017 - 29869/13

  KARWOWSKI ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  8384/08.

• 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).
• 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).