Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 20307/02
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 20307/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-75, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  However, this rule is subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see Baumann v. France, no 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001, and Brusco v. Italy, (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  In the light of these divergent interpretations, it is essential that the Court examine the procedure whereby the plea of entrapment was determined in order to ensure that the rights of the defence were adequately protected, in particular the right to adversarial proceedings and to equality of arms (see Ramanauskas, §§ 60-61, and Malininas, § 34, both cited above, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 133, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 20307/02

  Quoting Klaas v. Germany (22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269), the Government contended that it is not normally within the province of the European Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for these courts to assess the evidence before them.

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 13099/04

  LAUTARU v. ROMANIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions (see, in particular, Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Petrea, cited above, §§ 49-50; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010 and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 19730/10

  TOMA BARBU v. ROMANIA

  In previous cases the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 17187/05

  RADUCANU v. ROMANIA

  m of personal space, the Court has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, §§ 50-51, 21 June 2007; Brânduse v. Romania, no. 6586/03, § 50, 7 April 2009; Petrea, cited above, §§ 49-50; Racareanu v. Romania, no. 14262/03, §§ 49-52, 1 June 2010; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 56459/07

  LUKACSFY c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour a déjà conclu à la violation de l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention lorsque les tribunaux internes n'avaient pas examiné les arguments tirés de la provocation policière et avaient omis d'entendre les agents infiltrés et leurs collaborateurs (voir, par exemple, Khoudobine c. Russie, no 59696/00, § 136, CEDH 2006-XII (extraits), et Ali c. Roumanie, no 20307/02, § 104, 9 novembre 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 43543/09

  CONSTANTIN TUDOR v. ROMANIA

  The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees and unsatisfactory hygiene conditions (see, in particular, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 98, ECHR 2002-VI; Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 70, 19 June 2007; Petrea, cited above, §§ 49-50; and Ali v. Romania, no. 20307/02, § 83, 9 November 2010).