Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2013,13915
EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 25333/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,13915)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.06.2013 - 25333/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,13915)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Juni 2013 - 25333/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,13915)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,13915) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NICULESCU v. ROMANIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence Respect for private life) No violation of Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (10)

  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 18540/04

    VALENTINO ACATRINEI v. ROMANIA

    On 11 September 2000 the Romanian Intelligence Service ("the RIS") informed the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice ("the prosecutor") that the lawyer L.P. (the applicant in case no. 25333/03) had given bribes to several judges, including the applicant, in order to obtain decisions favourable to her clients.

    The Court observed that the court of last resort had addressed the issue of reclassification and had concluded that it had concerned only the sentence and not the legal classification of the facts themselves and that the defendants had had the opportunity to contest the facts attributed to them (see Peter v. Romania (dec.), no. 25333/03, § 80, 15 September 2009 and paragraph 7 above).

  • EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 25497/04

    FESIUC v. ROMANIA

    On 11 September 2000 the Romanian Intelligence Service ("the RIS") informed the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice ("the prosecutor") that the lawyer L.P. (the applicant in case no. 25333/03) had given bribes to several judges, including the applicant, in order to obtain decisions favourable to her clients.

    The Court observed that the court of last resort had addressed the issue of reclassification and had concluded that it had concerned only the sentence and not the legal classification of the facts themselves and that the defendants had had the opportunity to contest the facts attributed to them (see Peter v. Romania (dec.), no. 25333/03, § 80, 15 September 2009 and paragraph 5 above).

  • EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 43490/07

    CIPRIAN VLADUȚ AND IOAN FLORIN POP v. ROMANIA

    As for the general complaint about overcrowding, the Court reiterates having found, in numerous similar cases regarding complaints about material conditions of detention relating to structural issues such as overcrowding or dilapidated institutions, that given the specific nature of this type of complaint the legal actions suggested by the Romanian Government do not constitute effective remedies (see, among other authorities, Petrea v. Romania, no. 4792/03, § 37, 29 April 2008; Cucu v. Romania, no. 22362/06, § 73, 13 November 2012; and Niculescu v. Romania, no. 25333/03, § 75, 25 June 2013).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 40549/11

    POEDE c. ROUMANIE

    Les dispositions légales et la jurisprudence interne concernant la recevabilité des preuves au stade de l'enquête préliminaire (acte premergatoare), dans le cadre du code de procédure pénale en vigueur au moment des faits, figurent dans les arrêts Creanga c. Roumanie [GC], no 29226/03, §§ 58 et 60, 23 février 2012, Niculescu c. Roumanie, no 25333/03, §§ 61-62, 25 juin 2013, et Blaj c. Roumanie, no 36259/04, § 65, 8 avril 2014.
  • EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 27781/06

    VADUVA v. ROMANIA

    In order to ensure that the accused receives a fair trial, any difficulties caused to the defence by a limitation on its rights must be sufficiently counterbalanced by the procedures followed by the judicial authorities (see Fitt, cited above 46, and Niculescu v. Romania, no. 25333/03, § 115).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2013 - 27804/10

    BULEA v. ROMANIA

    The Court notes that in previous cases where applicants have had less than 4 square metres of personal space at their disposal it has found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify in itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Budaca v. Romania, no. 57260/10, §§ 40-45, 17 July 2012; Niculescu v. Romania, no. 25333/03, §§ 81 and 82, 25 June 2013; and Cucu, cited above, §§ 38-44).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 32163/13

    GHEORGHIȚA ET ALEXE c. ROUMANIE

    Les dispositions légales et la jurisprudence interne concernant la recevabilité des preuves au stade de l'enquête préliminaire (acte premergatoare), dans le cadre du code de procédure pénale en vigueur au moment des faits, figurent dans les arrêts Creanga c. Roumanie ([GC], no 29226/03, §§ 58 et 60, 23 février 2012), Niculescu c. Roumanie (no 25333/03, §§ 61-62, 25 juin 2013) et Blaj c. Roumanie (no 36259/04, § 65, 8 avril 2014).
  • EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 35049/08

    SERCE v. ROMANIA

    Moreover, the Court has already held in a number of cases that the detention conditions in Rahova or Giurgiu Prisons, which included the presence of parasites, breached the safeguards of Article 3 of the Convention (see Iacov Stanciu, cited above; Geanopol v. Romania, no. 1777/06, 5 March 2013; and Niculescu v. Romania, no. 25333/03, 25 June 2013, for the conditions in Rahova Prison; Cucu v. Romania, no. 22362/06, 13 November 2012, and Badila v. Romania, no. 31725/04, 4 October 2011, for the conditions in Giurgiu Prison).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 17295/10

    NICOLAE AUGUSTIN RADULESCU v. ROMANIA

    The Court has already found, in numerous similar cases regarding complaints about material conditions of detention relating to structural issues such as overcrowding or dilapidated installations, that given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions suggested by the Romanian Government do not constitute effective remedies (see, among other authorities, Petrea, cited above, § 37; Cucu v. Romania, no. 22362/06, § 73, 13 November 2012; and Niculescu v. Romania, no. 25333/03, § 75, 25 June 2013).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 66630/10

    MIHAILA v. ROMANIA

    The Court has already found, in numerous similar cases regarding complaints about material conditions of detention relating to structural issues such as overcrowding or dilapidated installations, that given the specific nature of this type of complaint, the legal actions suggested by the Romanian Government do not constitute effective remedies (see, among other authorities, Petrea v. Romania, no. 4792/03, § 37, 29 April 2008; Cucu v. Romania, no. 22362/06, § 73, 13 November 2012; and Niculescu v. Romania, no. 25333/03, § 75, 25 June 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht