Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOWAK v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NOWAK v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 60906/16

  The Court observes that the applicant was not classified as a dangerous detainee and, as such, he was not subjected to any other security measures on top of being frisked and strip searched (see paragraphs 2 and 4 above; contrast, Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, §§ 73-77, 17 April; or Bechta v. Poland, no. 39496/17, § 32, 20 May 2021).
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18

  ROTH v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 60906/16

  His treatment was not arbitrary, as the authorities had acted on suspicion that he was trafficking psychotropic substances (see paragraphs 33 and 34 below; contrast, Roth v. Germany, nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, § 70, 22 October 2020).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 60906/16

  The body inspection was carried out in a secluded place and performed by male officers who did not touch or insult the applicant (see paragraph 7 above; contrast, Vala?.inas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 26, ECHR 2001-VIII; or El Shennawy v. France, no. 51246/08, §§ 43-46, 20 January 2011).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 47229/12

  S.J. c. LUXEMBOURG (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 60906/16

  The Court therefore concludes that there is no basis for finding that the strip searches, in and of themselves, and despite their frequent recurrence, included any element of debasing or humiliating treatment which attained the minimum level of severity necessary to bring Article 3 of the Convention into play (see, mutatis mutandis, Dejnek, cited above, §§ 64-65; and S.J. v. Luxembourg (no. 2), no. 47229/12, §§ 56-62, 31 October 2013; contrast Iwa?„czuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 57, 15 November 2001; Vala?.inas, cited above, §§ 116-18; Roth, cited above § 72; and Bechta, cited above, § 33).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 39496/17

  BECHTA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 60906/16

  The Court observes that the applicant was not classified as a dangerous detainee and, as such, he was not subjected to any other security measures on top of being frisked and strip searched (see paragraphs 2 and 4 above; contrast, Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, §§ 73-77, 17 April; or Bechta v. Poland, no. 39496/17, § 32, 20 May 2021).

• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 16988/18

  BEREZA v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of petition in specific circumstances (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and Nowak v Poland, no. 60906/16, § 20, 13 October 2022).
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 44719/21

  OLECHNO v. POLAND

  The Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of petition in specific circumstances (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014, and Nowak v. Poland, no. 60906/16, § 20, 13 October 2022).