Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,45302
EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98 (https://dejure.org/2005,45302)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.07.2005 - 39737/98 (https://dejure.org/2005,45302)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Juli 2005 - 39737/98 (https://dejure.org/2005,45302)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,45302) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98
    While the Court has held that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, may require States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, this has so far arisen only in particular contexts (for example, concerning the protection of children, A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, § 22 and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V; and concerning the obligation on the authorities to safeguard the welfare of prisoners under their responsibility, for example Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; or D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 49, an exceptional cases where an applicant, scheduled for expulsion, was suffering serious illness close to death).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

    KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98
    While the Court has held that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, may require States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, this has so far arisen only in particular contexts (for example, concerning the protection of children, A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, § 22 and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V; and concerning the obligation on the authorities to safeguard the welfare of prisoners under their responsibility, for example Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; or D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 49, an exceptional cases where an applicant, scheduled for expulsion, was suffering serious illness close to death).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

    Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98
    While the Court has held that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, may require States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, this has so far arisen only in particular contexts (for example, concerning the protection of children, A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, § 22 and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V; and concerning the obligation on the authorities to safeguard the welfare of prisoners under their responsibility, for example Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; or D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 49, an exceptional cases where an applicant, scheduled for expulsion, was suffering serious illness close to death).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

    SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 39737/98
    The second and third rules are concerned with particular instances of interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property and should therefore be construed in the light of the general principle enunciated in the first rule (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 29-30, § 37, which reiterates in part the principles laid down by the Court in the case of Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61; see also Broniowski v. Poland, cited above, § 134).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht