Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IUSTIN ROBERTINO MICU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+5 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Procedure prescribed by law) Violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MICU v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  This applies, in particular, to cases in which Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is at issue and the Court must then exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05

  ALEKSANDRA DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  This has happened, on occasion, in cases concerning unacknowledged detention (Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 209, ECHR 2004-II), or where the State's responsibility was engaged in respect of secret detention on its territory (Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014), or where the record of an arrest had been destroyed (Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  This has happened, on occasion, in cases concerning unacknowledged detention (Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 209, ECHR 2004-II), or where the State's responsibility was engaged in respect of secret detention on its territory (Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014), or where the record of an arrest had been destroyed (Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, 3 November 2011).

 
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  In my view, this part of the applicant's complaint should have been addressed under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and not under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5. According to the Court's established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 § 4 make it a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 (principle stated in De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 60, Series A no. 77, and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 126, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; see, as recent examples, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 202, ECHR 2009, and S.T.S. v. the Netherlands, no. 277/05, § 59, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  Admittedly, in determining whether or not there has been a violation of Convention rights it is often necessary to look beyond the appearances and the language used, and to concentrate on the realities of the situation (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  The Court reiterates that according to its well-established case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see Jalloh v.Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).

• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  KASPAROV v. RUSSIA

  This may be the case even when there is no direct physical restraint of the applicant, such as by handcuffing or placement in a locked cell (see, for instance, Popoviciu v. Romania, no. 52942/09, § 59, 1 March 2016; Lazariu v. Romania, no. 31973/03, § 100, 13 November 2014; Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania, no. 41040/11, § 89, 13 January 2015; Valerian Dragomir v. Romania, no. 51012/11, § 70, 16 September 2014; Ghiurau v. Romania, no. 55421/10, § 80, 20 November 2012; Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, § 36, 26 June 2014, with further references therein; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).