Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LESLAW WÓJCIK v. POLAND

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.12.2011 - 66424/09
• EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EKMR, 22.10.1997 - 32094/96

  E.L.H. AND P.B.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  32094/96 and 32568/96, 22 October 1997) and also to the Court's judgments in the cases of Aliev v. Ukraine (no. 41220/98, § 188, 29 April 2003), and Dickson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V).

  The Court, like the Commission previously (see X. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 3603/68, Commission decision of 4 February 1970; G.S. and R.S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 17142/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991; and E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997), has noted with approval the reform movements in several European countries to improve prison conditions by facilitating long-term (also called "conjugal") visits.

• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  It is inconceivable that a prisoner should forfeit those rights and freedoms merely because of his status as a person detained following conviction (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, §§ 69-70, ECHR 2005-IX; Dickson, cited above, § 67, ECHR 2007-V; and Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 99, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  Such measures could include the limitations imposed on the number of family visits, supervision over those visits and, if so justified by the nature of the offence and the specific individual characteristics of a detainee, subjection of the detainee to a special prison regime or special visits arrangements (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 123, ECHR 2015, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 44158/98

  GORZELIK AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  The interpretation and application of such enactments depend on practice (see Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 64, ECHR 2004-I, and Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, 9 January 2013).
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  Privileges may encompass in particular measures like prison leave (see Boulois, cited above, § 98) or an early release (see Szabó v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28578/03, ECHR 2006-VIII; Tereshchenko v. Russia, no. 33761/05, § 107, 5 June 2014; and Macedo Da Costa v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 26619/07, § 22, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V; Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 33, Series A no. 296-A; and Remli v. France, 23 April 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-II).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  In terms of the burden of proof, it is up to the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 71, 17 September 2009; Vernillo v. France, judgment of 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198; and Dalia v. France, judgment of 19 February 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-I).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  46113/99 et al, § 69, ECHR 2010; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 other cases, § 77, 25 March 2014; and Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 107, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  46113/99 et al, § 69, ECHR 2010; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 other cases, § 77, 25 March 2014; and Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 107, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2021 - 66424/09

  The Court would first reiterate that in so far as there exists at the national level a remedy enabling the domestic courts to address, at least in substance, the argument of a violation of a given Convention right, an applicant is, as a rule, in duty bound to exercise this remedy before he applies to the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 37083/03

  TEBIETI MÜHAFIZE CEMIYYETI AND ISRAFILOV c. AZERBAIDJAN
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 33646/96

  CACAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 10425/03

  GULIJEV v. LITHUANIA

• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 81292/17

  CHOCHOLÁC v. SLOVAKIA

  It is true that this as such is not the subject matter of the present case and that, although reform movements to facilitate such visits have been noted with approval, the Convention does not require the Contracting Parties to make provisions for them (Leslaw Wójcik v. Poland, no. 66424/09, § 114, 1 July 2021).

  In the case-law of the Court, the refusal by the prison authorities to allow an applicant to have the possibility of private physical contact with his wife has been found to be compatible with the Convention, being a justified measure for the preservation of order and the prevention of crime (see Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, §§ 185-90, 29 April 2003, and Leslaw Wójcik v. Poland, no. 66424/09, § 114, 1 July 2021).