Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55673
EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,55673)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.09.2011 - 3390/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,55673)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. September 2011 - 3390/05 (https://dejure.org/2011,55673)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55673) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    On the other hand, the Court recalls that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

    EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    Having regard to the cumulative effects of the overcrowding and the overall inappropriate living conditions during the applicant's detention, which lasted three years and eight months, the Court considers that the nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected are sufficient to be qualified as inhuman and degrading (see Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 77, ECHR 2000-XII; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 45, 16 June 2005; and Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 42, 20 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 20841/02

    DROZDOWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    No compelling reasons have been found to exist for monitoring or delaying an applicant's correspondence with the Court (see Campbell, cited above, §§ 48 and 62; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-III; and Drozdowski v. Poland, no. 20841/02, §§ 27-31, 6 December 2005).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

    POPOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    On the other hand, the Court recalls that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 16757/90

    STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    The Court reiterates that Article 6, read as a whole, guarantees the right of an accused to participate effectively in a criminal trial, including, inter alia, not only his right to be present, but also to hear and follow the proceedings (see Stanford v. the United Kingdom, 23 February 1994, § 26, Series A no. 282-A).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

    KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    Regard must be had in assessing this question to, inter alia, the special features of the proceedings involved and the manner in which the defence's interests are presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the issues to be decided by it and their importance for the applicant (Belziuk v. Poland, 25 March 1998, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II; and Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, §§ 58-59, Series A no. 268-B...).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

    ARTYOMOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    The Court observes that, according to the existing international standards (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 96-100, 27 May 2010), segregation, isolation and restrictions on occupational and recreational activities are considered unnecessary in the case of HIV-infected persons in the community or when they are detained (see also Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 55, ECHR 2005-I).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

    CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    The Court reiterates that any "interference by a public authority" with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; and Niedbala v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 56529/00

    ENHORN c. SUEDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 3390/05
    The Court observes that, according to the existing international standards (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 96-100, 27 May 2010), segregation, isolation and restrictions on occupational and recreational activities are considered unnecessary in the case of HIV-infected persons in the community or when they are detained (see also Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, § 55, ECHR 2005-I).
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