Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,22232
EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,22232)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.05.2014 - 71672/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,22232)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Mai 2014 - 71672/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,22232)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,22232) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MAMULASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 18, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
    Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 11602/02

    SPÓLKA Z O.O. WAZA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

    SULWINSKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 22088/04

    BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

    RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

    GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08

    JELADZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    In this regard, it reiterates that there already exists well-established case-law on the issue of the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61 and 71-81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63-66, 8 January 2013) as well as case-law concerning prison conditions (see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 84-87, 27 January 2009, with further references therein; see also, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97-99, ECHR 2002-VI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 107-108, 28 March 2006; and Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, §§ 92-98, 6 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 16206/06

    BERIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, as a recent authority among many others, Beridze v. Georgia (dec.), no. 16206/06, 30 April 2013; Tabagari v. Georgia (dec.), nos.
  • EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 70820/10

    TABAGARI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    70820/10 and 60870/11, 18 June 2013, and Mazanashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19882/07, 28 January 2014).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 19882/07

    MAZANASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 71672/10
    70820/10 and 60870/11, 18 June 2013, and Mazanashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 19882/07, 28 January 2014).
  • EGMR - 15355/15 (anhängig)

    MAMULASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Have the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligations vis-à-vis the applicant with regard to the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention? Did the authorities explore the applicant's allegation of having been ill-treated due to the fact of having lodged his previous application with the Court (see Mamulashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 71672/10, 6 May 2014)?.
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