Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LONIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Degrading treatment) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Lonic v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LONIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

  FEJDE c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  Thus the Supreme Court was called upon to make a full assessment of the applicant's guilt or innocence regarding the charges against him in view of not only the arguments he had adduced before the first-instance court but also the arguments concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant substantive and procedural rules correctly (compare Abdulgadirov, cited above, § 42, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi, cited above, § 85).
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  In contrast to cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, where the Court accepted in principle that a compensatory remedy alone might suffice (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V; and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009 -...), the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3.
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  The Court reiterates that a person charged with a criminal offence should, as a general principle based on the notion of a fair trial, be entitled to be present at the first-instance hearing (see Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, §§ 58-59 ECHR 2006-XII).

 
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  In contrast to cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, where the Court accepted in principle that a compensatory remedy alone might suffice (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V; and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009 -...), the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3.
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

  GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  Therefore, it is even possible that a procedural situation which does not place a party at any disadvantage vis-à-vis his or her opponent still represents a violation of the right to adversarial proceedings if the party concerned did not have an opportunity to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed, with a view to influencing the court's decision (see Krcmár and Others, cited above, §§ 38-46; and Gregacevic v. Croatia, no. 58331/09, § 50, 10 July 2012).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 22, Series A no. 112).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  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, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  In assessing the question whether the applicant's presence was required at the hearing before the court of appeal, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A) and of their importance to the appellant (see Ekbatani, cited above, §§ 27-28; Kamasinski, cited above, § 106 in fine; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; and Hermi, cited above, § 62).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

  HELMERS c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00

  MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

  KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  The Court observes at the outset that, although the problem of prison overcrowding has been examined in several cases against Croatia in which a violation of Article 3 was found (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, ECHR 2006-III; Testa v. Croatia, no. 20877/04, 12 July 2007; Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, 8 November 2007; Dolenec, cited above; Longin, cited above; and Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, 4 December 2014), it has not so far considered that conditions of detention in Croatia disclosed a structural problem from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention (see, by contrast, paragraphs 94-95 above).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 9671/15

  J.M.B. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Étant donné que le grief qu'ils avaient soulevé sous l'angle de l'article 3 avait été rejeté pour non-épuisement des voies de recours indemnitaires effectives qui existaient à cet égard, ils ne disposaient plus sous l'angle de l'article 3 d'un « grief défendable'propre à fonder un grief sur le terrain de l'article 13 (voir, par exemple, Lonic c. Croatie, no 8067/12, § 53, 4 décembre 2014)[6].
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 37522/16

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has previously found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Mursic, cited above, §§ 151-153; Ulemek, cited above, §§ 127-131; and Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, § 74-78, 4 December 2014).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 55724/19

  DRACA v. CROATIA

  The Court's assessment 28. The Court notes that the fact that violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) have repeatedly been found in cases against Croatia originated in a situation where, under the relevant domestic law and practice at the time, the appellate courts did not notify defendants about a forthcoming session of the appeal panel if they were in detention and had a lawyer, or if in summary proceedings they had received a fine or a suspended sentence (see, among others, Zahirovic, cited above, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013; Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, §§ 94-102, 4 December 2014; Arps v. Croatia, no. 23444/12, §§ 24-29, 25 October 2016; Bosak and Others v. Croatia, nos.