Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,4150) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZAKSHEVSKIY v. UKRAINE
Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04
KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04
Handcuffing does not normally give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention where the measure has been imposed in connection with lawful detention and does not entail the use of force or public exposure exceeding what is reasonably considered necessary (see Gorodnitchev v. Russia, no. 52058/99, § 108, 24 May 2007, and Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 139, ECHR 2007-X). - EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91
KAMPANIS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04
The possibility for a detainee to be heard, either in person or through some form of representation, features among the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (see Kampanis v. Greece, 13 July 1995, § 47, Series A no. 318-B). - EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97
WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04
It is therefore not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection based on it (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). - EGMR, 23.05.1991 - 11662/85
Oberschlick ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04
In this connection, the Court recalls that the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - insofar as it is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner and must be attended by minimum safeguards commensurate with its importance (see Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Series A no. 89, p. 14, § 28; Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), judgment of 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204, p. 23, § 51; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 86, ECHR 2006-II).