Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 36199/15

  The authority referred to in Article 13 of the Convention may not necessarily in all instances be a judicial authority in the strict sense (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 67, Series A no. 28, and, more recently, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 149, 17 July 2014).

• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 39412/19

  POLGAR c. ROUMANIE

  Ainsi, la violation continue qu'il dénonce avait donc cessé à compter de ses transferts dans les prisons de Rahova et Jilava et le délai de six mois a commencé à courir à compter des 29 avril 2013 et 3 février 2014 respectivement (voir, par exemple, Abdilla c. Malte, no 36199/15, §§ 27-29, 17 juillet 2018, et Eskerkhanov et autres c. Russie, nos 18496/16 et 2 autres, § 31, 25 juillet 2017).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  The Court refers to the general principles stemming from its case-law and the assessment of the constitutional redress proceedings it made in Story and Others v. Malta (nos. 56854/13, 57005/13 and 57043/13, §§ 72-76 and 82-86, 29 October 2015) and reiterated in, for example, Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta (nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, § 76, 19 December 2017) and Abdilla v. Malta (no. 36199/15, § 24, 17 July 2018), finding that detainees in situations similar to that of the applicant in the present case were not required to have recourse to constitutional redress proceedings, and in the latter case a consequent violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 (§ 72).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22

  A.D. v. MALTA

  In Abdilla v. Malta (no. 36199/15, § 71, 17 July 2018) the Court further noted that despite its suggestion made in Story and Others (cited above, § 85) that the Government should be able to introduce a proper administrative or judicial remedy capable of ensuring the timely determination of such complaints, and where necessary, to prevent the continuation of the situation, no new remedy had yet been put in place.
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 42119/16

  MUNTEAN v. ROMANIA

  Thus, it finds that the period between 25 September and 4 October 2012 interrupted the continuous situation of the applicant's detention (see Abdilla v. Malta, no. 36199/15, § 28, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 12725/17

  SÎNGEORZAN AND GAITA v. ROMANIA

  Thus, it finds that the applicant's transfer on 16 February 2017 to Târgu Jiu Prison interrupted the continuous situation of the applicant's detention (see Abdilla v. Malta, no. 36199/15, § 28, 17 July 2018).