Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,15854
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,15854)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.04.2012 - 20071/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,15854)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. April 2012 - 20071/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,15854)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15854) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention Reasonableness of ...

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • skmr.ch (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

    Die Einzelhaft als Herausforderung für den Freiheitsentzug

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (34)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98

    GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).

    Indeed, solitary confinement, which is a form of "imprisonment within the prison", should be resorted to only exceptionally and after every precaution has been taken, as specified in paragraph 53.1 of the European Prison Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006 (see Öcalan, cited above, § 191; Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 139 and 145-146; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy (dec), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V, with further references; and Csüllög v. Hungary, cited above, § 31).

  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

    Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    Equality of arms is not ensured if the applicant, or his counsel, is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, among other authorities Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-...; and Mooren v. Germany [GC] no. 11364/03, ECHR 2009-..., § 124, with further references).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 52070/08

    LATAK v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    It also held that only those applicants in respect of whose civil claims the 3-year limitation period as set by the Polish law had not yet expired were required to make use of the civil action relied on by the Government (see Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009-..., § 154; and Latak v. Poland (dec.) no. 52070/08, ECHR 2010..., §§ 79-81 and 85).
     
  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

    SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    Equality of arms is not ensured if the applicant, or his counsel, is denied access to those documents in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his detention (see, among other authorities Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 129, ECHR 2006-...; and Mooren v. Germany [GC] no. 11364/03, ECHR 2009-..., § 124, with further references).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 23623/07

    JARKIEWICZ v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence will contravene Article 8 § 1 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, ECHR 2009-..., § 140, with further references and Jarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 23623/07, 6 July 2010, § 72, with further references).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

    INDELICATO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 30, 18 October 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-..., § 179; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR-2006-..., § 115 et seq., with further references).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, for instance, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-IX, § 91).
  • EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

    VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or to debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II, § 48).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

    CSÜLLÖG v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    These arrangements, intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, are based on separation of such detainees from the prison community together with tighter controls (see, for instance, Ramirez Sanchez, cited above, §§ 80-82 and 138; Messina (no. 2) v. Italy, no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X, §§ 42-54; Labita, cited above, §§ 103-109; Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, 21 July 2005, § 78; Van der Ven, cited above, §§ 26-31 and 50; and Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, 7 June 2011, §§ 13-16).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
    The nature of the offence allegedly committed by the applicant is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 30, 18 October 2001; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-..., § 179; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, ECHR-2006-..., § 115 et seq., with further references).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

    Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

    30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008; S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 91, ECHR 2011; Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012; Hanzelkovi v. the Czech Republic, no. 43643/10, § 72, 11 December 2014; Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 168, ECHR 2015; Zaiet v. Romania, no. 44958/05, § 50, 24 March 2015; Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, §§ 89, 121, 27 June 2017; and Pavel Shishkov v. Russia, no. 78754/13, §§ 95, 97, 2 March 2021).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

    KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

    Cependant, le maintien de l'interdiction des contacts directs ne peut se justifier que par l'existence d'un risque réel et continu de ce type (Horych c. Pologne, no 13621/08, §§ 117-132, 17 avril 2012, et Piechowicz c. Pologne, no 20071/07, §§ 205-222, 17 avril 2012).
  • EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

    WALESA v. POLAND

    Consequently, the impugned provision does not satisfy the Convention requirements for the quality of the "law", as domestic law must indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities so as to ensure to individuals the minimum degree of protection to which they are entitled under the rule of law in a democratic society (see Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012, with further references to the Court's case-law).
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