Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.S. v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.S. v. HUNGARY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SZ?°CS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 65290/14

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 65290/14

  Furthermore, the procedure must not entail any risk of lasting detriment to a suspect's health (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2006-IX).

• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 40246/19

  LÓZAY v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already held in a number of cases that applicants were not required, as a matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies, to pursue a substitute private prosecution, essentially because to do so would represent the pursuit of a legal avenue which would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see recently Pósa v. Hungary, no. 40885/16, §§ 17-21, 7 July 2020; R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019).
• EGMR, 18.07.2023 - 44033/17

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  In any event, the Convention does not, in principle, prohibit recourse to a forcible medical intervention that will assist in the investigation of an offence subject to certain conditions (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-IX; Salikhov v. Russia, no. 23880/05, § 75, 3 May 2012; and R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 57, 2 July 2019).
• EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 3824/17

  GÜNGÖR c. TÜRKIYE

  Un médecin habilité à cet effet a donc pratiqué un acte d'intrusion dans la bouche du requérant pour recueillir un prélèvement salivaire qui n'était pas dangereux en soi pour la santé du requérant (comparer avec R.S. c. Hongrie, no 65290/14, §§ 69-70, 2 juillet 2019).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 7329/16

  MATA v. HUNGARY

  The Court has held in a number of cases that applicants are not required, with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, to bring substitute private prosecution, essentially because to do so would constitute the pursuit of a legal avenue that would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019, and M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017).
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY

  As regards the Government's submission concerning the applicant's failure to initiate private prosecution proceedings, the Court has held in a number of cases that applicants are not required, with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, to bring substitute private prosecutions, essentially because to do so would constitute the pursuit of a legal avenue that would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019; M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017; R.B. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 60-65; and Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, §§ 25-27, 26 June 2012; see also Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 95, 2 November 2006).