Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KIKALISHVILI v. GEORGIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial ...
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08
GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08
The relevant legal provisions concerning the protection of prisoners" rights in the custodial institutions of Georgia at the material time are set out in the following judgments: Goginashvili v. Georgia (no. 47729/08, §§ 32-35, 4 October 2011), and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia (no. 35254/07, §§ 40-43, 22 November 2011).The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in the case of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein; see also Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012; and Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012).
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 1871/08
JELADZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08
The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in the case of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein; see also Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012; and Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012). - EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 17012/09
IRAKLI MINDADZE v. GEORGIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08
The relevant general principles concerning the adequacy of medical treatment in prisons have been summarised by the Court in the case of Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 135-140, ECHR 2016, with further references therein; see also Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 69-70, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 41-42, 18 December 2012; and Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 39-40, 11 December 2012). - EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21528/09
MARIUS DRAGOMIR c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08
The Court further notes that the manner of application of Article 6 to proceedings before courts of appeal depends on the special features of the proceedings involved; account must be taken of the entirety of the proceedings in the domestic legal order and of the role of the appellate court therein (see Botten v. Norway, 19 February 1996, § 39, Reports 1996-I, and Hermi v. Italy [GC], no. 18114/02, § 60, ECHR 2006-XII; see also Marius Dragomir v. Romania, no. 21528/09, §§ 18-19, 6 October 2015). - EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 55287/10
SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2018 - 51772/08
Article 6 § 3 (d) enshrines the principle that, before an accused can be convicted, all the evidence against him must normally be produced in his presence at a public hearing for the purpose of adversarial argument (see for the relevant principles Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, §§ 119-147, ECHR 2011 clarified further in Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 103, ECHR 2015; see also, Seton v. the United Kingdom, no. 55287/10, § 57, 31 March 2016).