Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Revision rejected (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Revision rejected (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.04.1976 - 5310/71
• EGMR, 18.01.1978 - 5310/71
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  The Court reiterates that legal certainty constitutes one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law which requires, inter alia, that where a court has finally determined an issue, its ruling should not be called into question (see Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 54, ECHR 2017).

  [6] See § 125 of the revision judgment and the reference to Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC] n° 71537/14, § 56, ECHR 2017.

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [60] See, for example, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000, § 54; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 266-275; Aydin v. Turkey, § 143; Trubnikov v. Russia, n° 49790/99, 5 July 2005, §§ 50-52 and 57; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, n° 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), §§ 76-77, where the respondent State had refused to provide "detailed information and to comment on the conditions of the applicant's detention in the isolation cell and his general conditions of detention, his medical treatment and the medical assistance provided to him".
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [55] N° 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI, § 66. See also Akkum and others v. Turkey, n° 21894/93, 24 March 2005, § 211; Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, n° 21519/02, 5 February 2009, §§ 176-177; Shakhgiriyeva and others v. Russia, n° 27251/03, 8 January 2009, § 134; Medova v. Russia, n° 25385/04, 15 January 2009, § 76; Utsayeva and others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, 29 May 2008, § 149, or Lisnyy and others v. Ukraine and Russia, n° 5355/15, 5 July 2016, §§ 25-26.

 
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [60] See, for example, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000, § 54; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 266-275; Aydin v. Turkey, § 143; Trubnikov v. Russia, n° 49790/99, 5 July 2005, §§ 50-52 and 57; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, n° 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), §§ 76-77, where the respondent State had refused to provide "detailed information and to comment on the conditions of the applicant's detention in the isolation cell and his general conditions of detention, his medical treatment and the medical assistance provided to him".
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [60] See, for example, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000, § 54; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 266-275; Aydin v. Turkey, § 143; Trubnikov v. Russia, n° 49790/99, 5 July 2005, §§ 50-52 and 57; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, n° 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), §§ 76-77, where the respondent State had refused to provide "detailed information and to comment on the conditions of the applicant's detention in the isolation cell and his general conditions of detention, his medical treatment and the medical assistance provided to him".
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 5355/15

  LISNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [55] N° 23531/94, ECHR 2000-VI, § 66. See also Akkum and others v. Turkey, n° 21894/93, 24 March 2005, § 211; Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, n° 21519/02, 5 February 2009, §§ 176-177; Shakhgiriyeva and others v. Russia, n° 27251/03, 8 January 2009, § 134; Medova v. Russia, n° 25385/04, 15 January 2009, § 76; Utsayeva and others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, 29 May 2008, § 149, or Lisnyy and others v. Ukraine and Russia, n° 5355/15, 5 July 2016, §§ 25-26.
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [49] See Stocké v. Germany, n° 11755/85, 19 March 1991, § 53; Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 29, § 74; Kraska v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 April 1993, Series A n° 254-B, § 22, or Aydin v. Turkey, n° 23178/94, 25 September 1997, §§ 70-73.
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 24396/94

  TAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  [60] See, for example, Tas v. Turkey, no. 24396/94, 14 November 2000, § 54; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, §§ 266-275; Aydin v. Turkey, § 143; Trubnikov v. Russia, n° 49790/99, 5 July 2005, §§ 50-52 and 57; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, n° 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), §§ 76-77, where the respondent State had refused to provide "detailed information and to comment on the conditions of the applicant's detention in the isolation cell and his general conditions of detention, his medical treatment and the medical assistance provided to him".