Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOROCHENKO v. ESTONIA

  Art. 8, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14+9, Art. 14, Art. 9, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1+13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 10507/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention requires the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent "national authority" both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 47, § 120).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 10507/03

  The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 10507/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and 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, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 10507/03

  According to the Court's case-law the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention must be made in an unequivocal manner and must not run counter to any important public interest (Håkansson and Sturesson v. Sweden, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 171-A, p. 20, § 66 and Nagula v. Estonia (dec.), no. 39203/02, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 10507/03

  However, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 22588/08

  SÕRO v. ESTONIA

  Under the terms of the treaty, the Russian Federation undertook to withdraw from Estonia, by 31 August 1994, all military personnel who were in active service with the Russian armed forces (see Nagula v. Estonia (dec.), no. 39203/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts); Mikolenko v. Estonia (dec.), no. 16944/03, 5 January 2006; and Dorochenko v. Estonia (dec.), no. 10507/03, 5 January 2006).