Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAGYÓ v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+8 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HAGYO v. HUNGARY

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 66820/01

  SVIPSTA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  However, there is no element in the case file or the parties" submissions indicating that the applicant could indeed exercise this right (cf. Lamy v. Belgium, loc. cit.; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 47, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 138, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  Having found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 90 above), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has an "arguable claim" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61).

 
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  However, there is no element in the case file or the parties" submissions indicating that the applicant could indeed exercise this right (cf. Lamy v. Belgium, loc. cit.; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 47, ECHR 2001-I; Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 138, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  In particular, its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (cf. Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 97).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  Until conviction he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of Article 5 § 3 is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to be reasonable (see, among other authorities, Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, p. 3, §§ 3-4, Series A no. 8).
• EGMR, 26.01.1993 - 14379/88

  W. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case 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, W. v. Switzerland, 26 January 1993, § 30, Series A no. 254-A).
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 52624/10

  The disclosure of evidence must take place in good time, giving access to the relevant elements of the file prior to the applicant's first appearance before the judicial authorities (see Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 29, Series A no. 151).

• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

  VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, the Court recalls that in Hagyó v. Hungary (no. 52624/10, 23 April 2013) it held that an action for damages allegedly sustained as a result of deterioration of the applicant's health because of prison conditions was not an effective remedy to be pursued (see paragraphs 31 to 36 of the Hagyó judgment).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Pareilles mesures peuvent comprendre la limitation du nombre de visites, la surveillance de ces visites et, si la nature de l'infraction ou les éléments caractérisant la situation d'un détenu donné le justifient, la soumission de l'intéressé à un régime pénitentiaire spécifique ou à des modalités de visite particulières (Hagyó c. Hongrie, no 52624/10, § 84, 23 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA

  It examined whether such restrictions were justified within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 8. In doing so it had regard, inter alia, to security risks, the stage of proceedings and the accessibility of such other means of maintaining regular contact with prisoners" families as visits and written correspondence (see, for example, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 69-72, ECHR 2003-II, and Baybasin v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13600/02, 6 October 2005, concerning, respectively, the monitoring of and ban on using Kurdish in telephone conversations in a maximum-security detention facility with special measures for preventing escape, in which it was possible to contact relatives by telephone twice a week; Ciszewski v. Poland (dec.), no. 38668/97, 6 January 2004, concerning the monitoring of telephone calls in a detention facility for dangerous delinquents; Davison v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 52990/08, 2 March 2010, concerning the cost of regular telephone calls which the applicant was allowed to make to his family; Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, §§ 75-90, 23 April 2013, concerning the applicant being denied unlimited telephone access to his child and contact with his common-law wife; Nusret Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 29826/15

  MICHNO v. LITHUANIA

  Such measures could include limiting the number of family visits, supervising those visits and, if justified by the nature of the offence and the specific individual character of a detainee, subjecting the detainee to a special prison regime or special visiting arrangements (see Hagyó v. Hungary, no. 52624/10, § 84, 23 April 2013).