Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STITIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 29660/03
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  Under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V).

  Whilst it is true that the fact that a remedy does not lead to an outcome favourable to the applicant does not render a remedy ineffective (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI), the Court concludes that the practice of the Gospic County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences in the circumstances of the present case rendered an otherwise effective remedy ineffective.

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000;and Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 107, 30 November 2004).

  With that aim in mind, a measure imposing certain restrictions of the prisoner's right to respect for his or her correspondence may be called for and may not of itself be incompatible with the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 61, judgment of 25 March 1983, p. 38, § 98, and, a contrario, Jankauskas v. Lithuania, no. 59304/00, judgment of 24 February 2005, §§ 21-22).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  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, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.12.2001 - 45701/99

  METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as "arguable" under the Convention (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 137, ECHR 2001-XII).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000;and Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 107, 30 November 2004).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27; Huvig v. France, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26; and Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 152, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27; Huvig v. France, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26; and Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 152, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 29660/03

  The Court reiterates that under its constant case-law Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in principle to disciplinary proceedings, unless, having regard to the autonomy of the concept "criminal charge", a disciplinary offence belongs to the criminal sphere (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-35, § 80-82; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, pp. 34-38, §§ 66- 73; and Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X).

• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  The Court observes at the outset that, although the problem of prison overcrowding has been examined in several cases against Croatia in which a violation of Article 3 was found (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, ECHR 2006-III; Testa v. Croatia, no. 20877/04, 12 July 2007; Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, 8 November 2007; Dolenec, cited above; Longin, cited above; and Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, 4 December 2014), it has not so far considered that conditions of detention in Croatia disclosed a structural problem from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention (see, by contrast, paragraphs 94-95 above).