Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07
• EGMR, 02.04.2014 - 18968/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  The Court would also reiterate that the rights under, for example, Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention have been found to comprise positive obligations and procedural safeguards which States are required to comply with (see, mutatis mutandis, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-151..., ECHR 2003-XII, with further references or Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 92, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  The Court would also reiterate that the rights under, for example, Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention have been found to comprise positive obligations and procedural safeguards which States are required to comply with (see, mutatis mutandis, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-151..., ECHR 2003-XII, with further references or Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 92, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.04.2004 - 56679/00

  AZINAS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  Among other things the Court must examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust available domestic remedies (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006 or Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007).

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2006 - 57986/00

  TUREK c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  It has been its practice to examine, where appropriate, whether such guarantees were complied with irrespective of the applicants" non-reliance on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see also Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, §§ 111-114, ECHR 2006-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  Among other things the Court must examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust available domestic remedies (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006 or Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2009 - 18968/07

  Among other things the Court must examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust available domestic remedies (see Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-III; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 67, 28 March 2006 or Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 91, 29 November 2007).