Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  The State must ensure that given the practical demands of imprisonment, the health and well-being of a detainee are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  However, in exceptional cases, where the state of a detainee's health is absolutely incompatible with the detention, Article 3 may require the release of such person under certain conditions (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, CEDH 2001-VI; Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001; see also Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-IX, and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 55, 2 December 2004).

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  However, in exceptional cases, where the state of a detainee's health is absolutely incompatible with the detention, Article 3 may require the release of such person under certain conditions (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, CEDH 2001-VI; Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001; see also Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-IX, and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 55, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 24.06.2004 - 48193/99

  BALETTE contre la BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  The accused have the right to know, inter alia, "material facts... on which the accusation is based" (see Balette v. Belgium (dec.), no. 48193/99, 24 June 2004).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  On the other hand, the Court has consistently stressed that, to fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, § 30, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  Further, in order to determine whether the aim of Article 6 - a fair trial - has been achieved, regard must be had to the entirety of the domestic proceedings conducted in the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Granger v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 174, p. 17, § 44; see also Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, pp. 13-14, § 38).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  On the other hand, the Court has consistently stressed that, to fall under Article 3, the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see, mutatis mutandis, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 15, § 30, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 6293/04

  The State must ensure that given the practical demands of imprisonment, the health and well-being of a detainee are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79).