Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DERMANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-3 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...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, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Nevertheless, in the light of Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the person's health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI), with the provision of the requisite medical assistance and treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, §§ 64 et seq., Reports 1998-V).

  Furthermore, in view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained "for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence", as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a), which authorises deprivation of liberty "after conviction by a competent court" (see Panchenko, cited above, § 93, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such intention does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII; Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

  PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  In exceptional cases, where the state of a detainee's health is wholly incompatible with detention, Article 3 may require his or her release under certain conditions (see Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI, and Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no. 48799/99, 5 April 2001).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such intention does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII; Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 73786/01

  CENBAUER v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such intention does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII; Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 43, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 42, ECHR 2006-X, and Kudla, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  However, when assessing the reasonableness of the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention, the Court should make a global evaluation of the accumulated periods of detention under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 36-37, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  In the applicant's case, however, with the passing of time the courts' reasoning did not evolve to reflect the developing situation and they failed to verify whether this ground remained valid at the advanced stage of the proceedings (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 64, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  With the passage of time the authorities must examine this issue with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify detention pending trial (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 43, Series A no. 207, and Panchenko v. Russia, cited above, § 106).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 48497/06

  Nevertheless, as said above, the State must ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured (see Kudla, cited above, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, pp. 15-16, § 79, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 95 and 100, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 32697/10

  EZER c. TURQUIE

  Au regard des éléments du dossier, elle estime que rien ne permet de douter de la volonté des instances d'enquête d'élucider les faits et de s'assurer que le dysfonctionnement rencontré n'était ni intentionnel ni permanent (voir également dans le même sens, Ä�ermanovic c. Serbie, no 48497/06, §§ 60 et 61, 23 Février 2010).