Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07   

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/2012,16649
EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16649)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.07.2012 - 21780/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16649)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Juli 2012 - 21780/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,16649)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16649) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for private life) (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03

    GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

    The Court further notes that the applicant's special needs were further disregarded as no measures were adopted to alleviate the hardship caused by the inaccessibility of the sanitation facilities while meeting his wife for conjugal visits, which under Latvian legislation could last up to forty-eight hours (see Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 28, 3 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

    D.F. v. LATVIA

    Furthermore, and unlike in another recent case against Latvia where the Court had occasion to apply the principles outlined above (see Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, §§ 38-39, 3 July 2012), the Government themselves have admitted that the applicant had repeatedly requested to be transferred elsewhere because of threats to his life and health in Daugavpils Prison.
  • EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05

    VINTMAN v. UKRAINE

    However, the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see, for example, Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 119, 20 June 2002, and Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 55, 3 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 16680/14

    PE?‡ARANDA SOTO v. MALTA

    In so far as the applicant's failure to inform the Court that he had been released could be considered as an objection on the grounds of abuse of petition the Court reiterates that any conduct of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it constitutes an abuse of the right of application (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 26576/10

    TOTOLICI c. ROUMANIE

    Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime que les autorités nationales ont pris en compte la qualité d'agent de police du requérant et ont entendu lui assurer une certaine protection conformément à la loi interne (paragraphe 39 ci-dessus, et, mutatis mutandis, Aleksejeva c. Lettonie, no 21780/07, § 38-39, 3 juillet 2012).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 19279/03

    BANNIKOV v. LATVIA

    Section 45 of the Sentence Enforcement Code, concerning visits in prison, can be found in Aleksejeva v. Latvia (no. 21780/07, § 28, 3 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12

    DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (NO. 2)

    Another important factor in this assessment is whether the detainee is particularly vulnerable, for instance because he or she is suffering from a mental disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003, and Korpachyova-Hofbauer v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 56668/12, §§ 4 and 35, 1 September 2015), is young (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011) or belongs to a category at heightened risk of abuse (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (detainees convicted of war crimes and kept unsegregated); Stasi, cited above, § 91 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v.Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 114, 17 January 2013 (court employees); D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 81 and 84 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, cited above, § 90 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

    KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

    In any event, while it is clear that the authorities have an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect a detainee from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by other detainees, especially if they have reason to believe that the detainee is particularly vulnerable - for instance because he or she is suffering from a psychological disorder (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, §§ 189-92, 3 June 2003), is of young age (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 86, 10 February 2011), or belongs to a category that is at heightened risk (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-70, 27 May 2008 (Serbs convicted of war crimes against Bosniacs and kept, unsegregated, in a prison where about ninety per cent of inmates were Bosniacs); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011 (homosexuals); J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012 (police collaborators); Aleksejeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012 (relatives of prison guards); Starovoitovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 27343/05, §§ 35-38, 27 November 2012 (private security guards); D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 81, 29 October 2013 (sexual offenders); Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014 (police officers); and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015 (persons accused of sexually abusing minors)) - or to believe that the other detainees have an increased propensity to violence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 57-60, ECHR 2002-II, and Oshurko v. Ukraine, no. 33108/05, § 72, 8 September 2011), there is no evidence - and the applicant has not elaborated on that point either - that in her case the hospital staff knew or ought to have known that she stood a real risk of being assaulted by the other patient in the shower.
  • EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 23183/15

    A.T. v. ESTONIA

    On the other hand, the States have an obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention and that this, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 102, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 34, 3 July 2012).
  • EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 7257/03

    MAKSIMOVS v. LATVIA

    The Court considers that the applicant has failed to substantiate before it, let alone to submit prima facie evidence (see Aleksejeva v. Latvia, no. 21780/07, § 51, 3 July 2012), that it had not been possible to establish the paternity of his children while he was detained and that any issues arose under Article 8 of the Convention in that connection.
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