Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07
- EGMR, 24.09.2012 - 24027/07
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (13)
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
Lord Hoffmann, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell found that, on the basis of Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 161, Article 3, insofar as it applied to inhuman and degrading treatment and not to torture, was applicable only in attenuated form to extradition cases.Lord Hoffmann, giving the lead speech, considered the Court's judgment Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 81, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V. There, the Court stated that it should not be inferred from its remarks in Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 161 that there was "any room for balancing the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons for expulsion in determining whether a State's responsibility under Article 3 (art. 3) is engaged." Lord Hoffmann stated:.
46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 90 and 91, ECHR 2005-I, the Grand Chamber confirmed the principle first laid down in Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 113, Series A no. 161, that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive had suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country.
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
The Court has frequently found that Article 3 is relative and depends on all the circumstances of a case (see, for example, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 108 and 115, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89
ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
Although the press release does go further than merely announcing the decision to freeze the fourth applicant's assets, and thus it may be said to lack the necessary discretion and circumspection required by Allenet de Ribemont v. France, judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, § 38, some comment on a matter of such public interest is inevitable.
- EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
The conditions were analogous to, if not worse than, those found to be in violation of Article 3 in G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, 11 March 2004 and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III. For instance, in G.B., the applicant was subjected to a stringent custodial regime for more than eight years, which involved twenty-three hours in his cell where he had to take all his meals; in Peers, despite the conditions of his cell, the applicant had at least been allowed to have his cell door open during the day. - EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03
Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
Moreover, this Court's judgments in Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-... and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, ECHR 2007-... did not assist the fourth applicant. - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96
PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
For example, in Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, ECHR 2001-VII a four-limb-deficient thalidomide victim with numerous heath problems was detained for three nights and four days. - EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99
VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
In respect of the requirement at ADX Florence for a prisoner to be strip-searched every time he went for recreation, the applicants observed that similar searches had been found to be in violation of Article 3 in Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, 4 February 2003. - EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00
SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
In addition, the Court has never found that a trial in a Convention State was unfair simply because of the delay in bringing the prosecution (see for example, Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI where the applicant was tried for war crimes committed forty-four years earlier). - EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99
LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
In respect of the requirement at ADX Florence for a prisoner to be strip-searched every time he went for recreation, the applicants observed that similar searches had been found to be in violation of Article 3 in Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, 4 February 2003. - EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98
G.B. v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 24027/07
The conditions were analogous to, if not worse than, those found to be in violation of Article 3 in G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, 11 March 2004 and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001-III. For instance, in G.B., the applicant was subjected to a stringent custodial regime for more than eight years, which involved twenty-three hours in his cell where he had to take all his meals; in Peers, despite the conditions of his cell, the applicant had at least been allowed to have his cell door open during the day. - EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 59638/00
BASTONE c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 56317/00
ARGENTI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04
KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE