Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,16337
EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02 (https://dejure.org/2014,16337)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.07.2014 - 28825/02 (https://dejure.org/2014,16337)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Juli 2014 - 28825/02 (https://dejure.org/2014,16337)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,16337) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BUGLOV v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

    NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    Other relevant domestic law in respect of the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention is summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, §§ 53-61, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §§ 44-45, 15 May 2012).

    As regards the opportunity to challenge the prosecutor's detention order in court, it is to be noted that in the admissibility decision of 25 November 2003 in the case of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00) the Court held that this remedy was ineffective in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 3 about the length of pre-trial detention.

  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    As regards the necessity of the interference, the Court, in the light of the principles which emerge from its previous case-law on the matter (see Oleksy v. Poland, no. 64284/01, § 43-45, 28 November 2006), finds no compelling reasons for the monitoring of the relevant correspondence, whose confidentiality it was important to respect (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 62, Series A no. 233, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 129, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

    YANKOV c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    Secondly, there was no procedure in place by which a court or a higher administrative authority could review that punishment (compare and contrast Puzinas (no. 2), cited above, § 34, and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 91, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 64284/01

    OLEKSY v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    As regards the necessity of the interference, the Court, in the light of the principles which emerge from its previous case-law on the matter (see Oleksy v. Poland, no. 64284/01, § 43-45, 28 November 2006), finds no compelling reasons for the monitoring of the relevant correspondence, whose confidentiality it was important to respect (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 62, Series A no. 233, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 129, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    The interference in the present case had a legal basis, namely section 13 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act, and the Court is satisfied that it pursued the legitimate aim of "the prevention of disorder or crime" (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 83, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

    CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    As regards the necessity of the interference, the Court, in the light of the principles which emerge from its previous case-law on the matter (see Oleksy v. Poland, no. 64284/01, § 43-45, 28 November 2006), finds no compelling reasons for the monitoring of the relevant correspondence, whose confidentiality it was important to respect (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, § 62, Series A no. 233, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 129, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

    LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him or her - either when that witness is making a statement or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Lüdi v. Switzerland, 15 June 1992, § 49, Series A no. 238).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    Indeed, some measure of control over prisoners" correspondence is called for and is not in itself incompatible with the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 98, Series A no. 61).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI, and Dvoynykh, cited above, § 66).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

    POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 28825/02
    Similarly, the European Commission of Human Rights's report on its visit to Ivano-Frankivsk Prison noted that the prison cells had been freshly painted prior to its visit (see Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 71, ECHR 2003-V, and Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, no. 39042/97, § 53, 29 April 2003).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

    B. ./. Österreich

  • EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13

    PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

    In István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, 17 January 2012, the Court, having found a violation of Article 3 on account of the overcrowded conditions in which the applicant was detained, went on to examine his complaint as regards the restrictions "on the frequency and duration of family visits", and found a violation of Article 8. In Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012 two violations of Article 3 were found on account of the applicant's conditions of detention, and also a violation of Article 8 on account of the opening by the officer of the correctional facility of letters from the Court to the applicant (along with a number of violations of other Articles); see also Buglov v. Ukraine, no. 28825/02, 10 July 2014.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht