Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVISON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  However, it is an essential part of a detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see, among other authorities, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 123, 12 June 2008; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-...(extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland, (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  However, it is an essential part of a detainee's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see, among other authorities, Vlasov v. Russia, no. 78146/01, § 123, 12 June 2008; Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 127, ECHR 2007-...(extracts); and Klamecki v. Poland, (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.44362/04, § 70, CEDH 2007-).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 52990/08

  The Court recalls that not every difference in treatment will amount to discrimination contrary to Article 14. It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment, and that there is no reasonable or objective justification for this distinction (see Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 192, p. 19, § 60; Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, § 72).

• EGMR, 19.10.2017 - 67482/14

  LEBOIS v. BULGARIA

  If telephone facilities are, however, made available, they may, again in view of the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment, also be subject to restrictions (see A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92-93, 29 January 2002; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010; and Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05

  TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 70, ECHR 2007-V, and Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA

  It examined whether such restrictions were justified within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8. In doing so it had regard, inter alia, to security risks, the stage of proceedings and the accessibility of such other means of maintaining regular contact with prisoners" families as visits and written correspondence (see, for example, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 69-72, ECHR 2003-II, and Baybasin v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13600/02, 6 October 2005, concerning, respectively, the monitoring of and ban on using Kurdish in telephone conversations in a maximum-security detention facility with special measures for preventing escape, in which it was possible to contact relatives by telephone twice a week; Ciszewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38668/97, 6 January 2004, concerning the monitoring of telephone calls in a detention facility for dangerous delinquents; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010, concerning the cost of regular telephone calls which the applicant was allowed to make to his family; Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 75-90, 23 April 2013, concerning the applicant being denied unlimited telephone access to his child and contact with his common-law wife; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 6558/18

  VOYEVODIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that, in respect of telephone access, Article 8 of the Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing prisoners the right to make telephone calls, in particular where the facilities for contact by way of correspondence are available and adequate (see A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, § 92, 29 January 2002; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.