Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JEGOROVS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 16, Art. 17, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  In previous cases the Court has been reluctant to accept that such a complaint was an effective remedy where the prosecution authorities were aware of a person's situation in detention but failed to act to remedy that situation (see Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, §§ 88 and 89, 19 October 2010, and Melnitis, cited above, § 49).

  Consequently, provided that it respects the rights protected by the Convention, each Contracting State is at liberty to impose and regulate the use of its official language (see, mutatis mutandis, Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII; Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 141, 19 October 2010; and Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 07.12.2004 - 71074/01

  MENTZEN c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  Consequently, provided that it respects the rights protected by the Convention, each Contracting State is at liberty to impose and regulate the use of its official language (see, mutatis mutandis, Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII; Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 141, 19 October 2010; and Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 49197/06

  SÜKRAN AYDIN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  49197/06, 23196/07, 50242/08, 60912/08 and 14871/09, § 50, 22 January 2013).

• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 76680/17

  D v. LATVIA

  In cases concerning conditions of detention in Latvian prisons, the Court has consistently held the view that an applicant must exhaust domestic remedies by pursuing complaints before the administrative courts (see Jegorovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 110-11, 1 July 2014, and Kocegarovs and Others v. Latvia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 27979/08

  ABOLINS v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of Article 35 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see Jegorovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, § 103, 1 July 2014).