Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,55824
EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03 (https://dejure.org/2012,55824)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.10.2012 - 7259/03 (https://dejure.org/2012,55824)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. Januar 2012 - 7259/03 (https://dejure.org/2012,55824)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55824) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MITKUS v. LATVIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-3 - Rights of defence Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses Obtain attendance of witnesses) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)  

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

    JEGOROVS v. LATVIA

    In that regard, the Court observes that the applicant did not indicate to the domestic authorities that the prison medical staff had neglected his complaints about the symptoms that had allegedly resulted in his health problems (see paragraph 43 above) (see ibid, §§ 58 and 59, and contrast Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 33, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 7459/04

    GÖKBULUT c. TURQUIE

    Il peut donc être approprié, dans une affaire donnée, d'examiner ces critères dans un ordre différent, notamment lorsque l'un d'eux se révèle particulièrement probant pour déterminer si la procédure a été ou non équitable (voir à cet égard, par exemple, Nechto c. Russie, no 24893/05, §§ 119-125 et 126-127, 24 janvier 2012, Mitkus c. Lettonie, no 7259/03, §§ 101-102 et 106, 2 octobre 2012, Gani c. Espagne, no 61800/08, §§ 43-45, 19 février 2013, et Sandru c. Roumanie, no 33882/05, §§ 62-66, 15 octobre 2013 ; dans toutes ces affaires, la deuxième étape, c'est-à-dire la question de savoir si les déclarations du témoin absent constituaient l'élément à charge unique ou déterminant, a été examinée avant la première étape, c'est-à-dire la question de l'existence d'un motif sérieux justifiant la non-comparution du témoin).
  • EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 14092/06

    CIORAP c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA (N° 4)

    La Cour rappelle que la Convention ne garantit pas en tant que tel le droit à l'ouverture de poursuites pénales contre des tiers (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Perez c. France [GC], no 47287/99, § 70, CEDH 2004-I, et Mitkus c. Lettonie, no 7259/03, § 76, 2 octobre 2012).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

    TIMOFEJEVI v. LATVIA

    The Court will accordingly examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Shchukin and Others v. Cyprus, no. 14030/03, § 99, 29 July 2010; ĐurÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 110, 11 October 2011; Halat v. Turkey, no. 23607/08, §§ 48-50, 8 November 2011; Sercau v. Romania, no. 41775/06, §§ 79-80, 5 June 2012; and Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, §§ 68-71, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8619/09

    ZVAGULIS v. LITHUANIA

    It cannot fail to observe that, in those two cases, a breach of the right to privacy was found not only because of disclosure by the press of information of a private nature, but also because the Court attached particular significance to the fact that information about an applicant's and an applicant's husband's illness respectively was disclosed to journalists by doctors at State medical institutions, which made that violation particularly grave (see Biriuk, § 43, Armoniene, § 44, both cited above; also see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 133, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 43579/09

    MERTINAS AND MERTINIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

    It cannot fail to observe that, in those two cases, a breach of the right to privacy was found not only because of disclosure by the press of information of a private nature, but also because the Court attached particular significance to the fact that information about, respectively, an applicant's and an applicant's husband's illness was disclosed to journalists by doctors at State medical institutions, which made that violation particularly grave (see Biriuk, § 43, Armoniene, § 44, both cited above; also see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 133, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

    ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

    In any event, the Court notes that an ordinary medical check-up does not suffice to reveal chronic hepatitis, and that the disease can remain asymptomatic for extended periods of time (see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 68, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 55569/08

    V.V.G. v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

    Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 76, 2 October 2012; and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 13308/07

    SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has examined the application and considers that, in light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 96, 2 October 2012; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 68-71, 20 January 2005; and see Kashlan v. Russia (dec.), no. 60189/15, 19 April 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71050/11

    GORODOVYCH v. UKRAINE

    In certain situations it is only by recourse to criminal-law remedies that it can be ensured that situations are investigated and evidence is collected in conformity with the Convention requirements (see Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, § 76, 2 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 26118/07

    DI PAOLO AND BENEDETTI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6170/10

    MAJCEN v. SLOVENIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht