Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,48025
EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04 (https://dejure.org/2006,48025)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.07.2006 - 26853/04 (https://dejure.org/2006,48025)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Juli 2006 - 26853/04 (https://dejure.org/2006,48025)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,48025) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c+6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d+6 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6-2 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-d+6-1 Violations of Art. 3 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible ...

 
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 ... (176)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    In so far as the applicant may be understood to complain about the length of the criminal proceedings against him, the Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, particularly the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).

    The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    To assess this evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but has added that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).

    It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    As the guarantees of paragraph 3 (d) of Article 6 are specific aspects of the right to a fair trial set forth in paragraph 1 of this Article, the Court will consider the complaint concerning the failure to examine Mrs R. and Mr Kh. in the hearing under the two provisions taken together (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25).

    More specifically, Article 6 § 3 (d) leaves it to them, again as a general rule, to assess whether it is appropriate to call witnesses, in the "autonomous" sense given to that word in the Convention system (see Asch v. Austria, judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, § 25); it "does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf: its essential aim, as is indicated by the words 'under the same conditions', is a full 'equality of arms' in the matter" (see, among other authorities, Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp.

     
  • EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

    Klaus Croissant

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    Notwithstanding the importance of a relationship of confidence between lawyer and client, the right to choose one's own counsel cannot be considered to be absolute (see Croissant v. Germany, judgment of 25 September 1992, Series A no. 237-B, § 29).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

    STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    Such rights are implicit in the very notion of an adversarial procedure and can also be derived from the guarantees contained in sub-paragraphs (c) and (e) of Article 6 § 3 (see, among other authorities, Stanford v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 282-A, pp. 10-11, § 26).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    m for two inmates was noted as a relevant aspect in finding a violation of Article 3, albeit in that case the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04
    Where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  • EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

    VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

  • EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

    BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

    BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    In certain particular situations, however, the Court may find it useful to indicate to the respondent State the type of measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the - often systemic - situation that gave rise to the finding of a violation (see, for example, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

    VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

    The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 141; Kudla, cited above, §§ 92-94; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 101/15

    Urteile gegen Brüder Nawalny "willkürlich"

    Furthermore, the Court refers to its settled case-law to the effect that when an applicant has suffered an infringement of his rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be the reopening of proceedings, if requested (see, mutatis mutandis, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 263, 13 July 2006).
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