Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,39897) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
- EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 5829/04
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
POPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
He referred in this respect to Popov v Russia, no. 26853/04, 13 July 2006, and Peers v. Greece, application no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III. The Government's account was based on an inspection made in 2006, after the refurbishment of the cells.Moreover, the Government did not explain how the other remedies mentioned in section 21 of the 1995 Pre-Trial Detention Act, to which they referred, such as "proposals, petitions and complaints to State bodies, bodies of local self-government or public associations" could have prevented the alleged violation or its continuation or provided the applicant with adequate redress (see Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 205, 13 July 2006).
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available 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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
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 had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI). - EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00
MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available 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).