Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55969
EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,55969)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.07.2011 - 41550/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,55969)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Juli 2011 - 41550/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,55969)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55969) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    The Court points out that there must be a clear causal connection between the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings or other sources of income (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 285-C, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available both in theory and in practice at the relevant time - that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    Although the question of whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    However, even in the absence of these, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III, with further references).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available both in theory and in practice at the relevant time - that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that a failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-founded nature of the applicant's allegations (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and, most recently, Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 88, 15 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

    VLADIMIR KRIVONOSOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    The Court observes that in certain instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of firmly corroborating or refuting allegations under Article 3 of the Convention and that a failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-founded nature of the applicant's allegations (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts), and, most recently, Vladimir Krivonosov v. Russia, no. 7772/04, § 88, 15 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
    The Court points out that there must be a clear causal connection between the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in an appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings or other sources of income (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (Article 50), 13 June 1994, §§ 57-58, Series A no. 285-C, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 10443/12

    GEYLANI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

    The Court therefore concludes that the second applicant failed to properly substantiate her claims for pecuniary damage (see, mutatis mutandis, Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 60, 5 July 2011).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

    NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

    However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 52025/13

    MUMRYAYEV v. RUSSIA

    At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 49038/12

    GUSEV v. RUSSIA

    At the same time, when applicants complained of the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services when they no longer found themselves in the situation they complained about, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages was capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 9443/05

    KHACHATRYAN v. RUSSIA

    Where the applicants are no longer held in the detention facility where it was alleged that no adequate medical assistance had been made available to them, a civil claim for damages is capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offers reasonable prospects of success (see Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008, and, more recently, Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, §§ 34-35, 5 July 2011).
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