Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68817) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GENERALOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 13 No violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 24325/03
- EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
In this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, §§ 35-36, Series A no. 18). - EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and in particular whether it pursued a legitimate aim and there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91
TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
It may be subject to legitimate restrictions, for example, statutory limitation periods, security for costs orders and regulations concerning minors and persons of unsound mind (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports 1996-IV, and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 62-67, Series A no. 316-B).
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
The applicant's claim, as submitted in February 2002, was therefore shown to be "arguable" and the domestic authorities were placed under an obligation to carry out "a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see, for similar reasoning, Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-XII, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, §§ 358 and 359, 6 April 2004). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the State to 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 (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 101-02, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93
AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
The applicant's claim, as submitted in February 2002, was therefore shown to be "arguable" and the domestic authorities were placed under an obligation to carry out "a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see, for similar reasoning, Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-XII, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, §§ 358 and 359, 6 April 2004). - EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
The Court reiterates that it has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in cases against Russia on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees while in pre-trial detention (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, §§ 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI). - EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 24325/03
The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00
MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93
MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI