Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,32981
EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,32981)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.11.2015 - 38758/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,32981)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. November 2015 - 38758/05 (https://dejure.org/2015,32981)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,32981) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MOROZOV v. RUSSIA

    Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07

    FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05
    The Court further reiterates that, in contrast with an objection on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, it is not open to it to dispense with the application of the six-month rule solely because the respondent Government have not made an objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 71; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 72, 17 January 2012; and Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 46, 21 October 2014).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

    MUSAEV v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05
    The Court further reiterates that, in contrast with an objection on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, it is not open to it to dispense with the application of the six-month rule solely because the respondent Government have not made an objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 71; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 72, 17 January 2012; and Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 46, 21 October 2014).
  • EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

    Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

    In the absence of convincing information from the Government, the Court will examine the issue on the basis of the first applicant's submissions (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 68, 12 November 2015, and Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 35, 7 June 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

    NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

    However, when an applicant was no longer in a situation of which he complained, that is when he was no longer in detention and/or no longer experienced the detention authorities" failure to provide them with adequate medical services, the Court has stressed that a civil claim for damages would have been capable of providing redress in respect of that complaint, and would have offered reasonable prospects of success (see Morozov v. Russia, no. 38758/05, § 47, 12 November 2015; Shchebetov v. Russia, no. 21731/02, §§ 89-92, 10 April 2012; Gadamauri and Kadyrbekov v. Russia, no. 41550/02, § 34, 5 July 2011; and Buzychkin v. Russia, no. 68337/01, § 83, 14 October 2008).
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