Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68481
EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,68481)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.11.2009 - 25282/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,68481)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. November 2009 - 25282/06 (https://dejure.org/2009,68481)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68481) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DOLENEC v. CROATIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 8 Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

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 ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (25)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    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).

    Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 100, 2 April 2009).

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).

    m for two inmates was noted as a relevant aspect in finding a violation of Article 3, albeit that in that case the space factor was coupled with an established lack of ventilation and lighting (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 70-72, ECHR 2001-III).

  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    In this connection the Court observes that the Convention "is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective; this is particularly so of the rights of the defence in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial, from which they derive" (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).
  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

    DALBAN v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    As to the applicant's victim status, the Court reiterates that an applicant may lose his victim status if two conditions are met: first, the authorities should acknowledge the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and, second, afford redress (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, §§ 69; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2000-IX; and Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), no. 11956/07, § 58, 21 April 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

    GUISSET c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    As to the applicant's victim status, the Court reiterates that an applicant may lose his victim status if two conditions are met: first, the authorities should acknowledge the alleged violations either expressly or in substance and, second, afford redress (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, §§ 69; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2000-IX; and Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), no. 11956/07, § 58, 21 April 2009).
  • EGMR, 15.06.2000 - 45441/99

    PULLICINO v. MALTA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    Indeed, the defence of the accused's interests may best be served by the contribution which the accused makes to his lawyer's conduct of the case before the accused is called to give evidence (see Matyjek v. Poland, no. 38184/03, § 59, ECHR 2007-..., and Pullicino v. Malta (dec.), no. 45441/99, 15 June 2000).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 74, 15 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 44069/98

    G.B. v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    Bearing in mind that the requirements of paragraph 3 (b) and (c) of Article 6 of the Convention amount to specific elements of the right to a fair trial guaranteed under paragraph 1, the Court will examine all the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, in particular, Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 31, and G.B. v. France, no. 44069/98, § 57, ECHR 2001-X).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    The Court observes that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

    MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06
    m during nine months of his detention (see Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 40, 20 January 2005).
  • EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 2448/03

    DEBELIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 41075/02

    PITRA v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00

    LABZOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 503/05

    KOVAC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

    KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

    Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter,

  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

    KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

    IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

    BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

    MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

  • EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

    POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 4938/16

    PRANJIC-M-LUKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

    The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see, for example, Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001-I, and Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 165, 26 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

    KUSIC v. CROATIA

    On 13 November 2014, in decision U-III-6559/2010 (Official Gazette no. 142/14), the Constitutional Court, referring to the standards for an effective investigation outlined in the Court's judgments in Dolenec v. Croatia (no. 25282/06, §§ 120-130 and 143-145, 26 November 2009), Gladovic v. Croatia (no. 28847/08, §§ 39-40 and 46-49, 10 May 2011), MaÄ?er v. Croatia (no. 56185/07, §§ 105-107 and 111-112, 21 June 2011), urÄ?evic v. Croatia (no. 52442/09, §§ 72-74, 77 and 83-85, ECHR 2011) (extracts) and V.D. v. Croatia (no. 15526/10, §§ 60-65, 8 November 2011), for the first time accepted a constitutional complaint concerning the lack of an effective investigation into the complainant's alleged ill-treatment.
  • EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 13274/11

    PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Finally, it should ensure the possibility of ascertaining the facts of the case before the chance to do so fades away, making a fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; and Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 192, 26 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 15253/10

    SIMECKI v. CROATIA

    The Court firstly reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such a correlation (see Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts) and Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 191, 26 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 8550/03

    SAPOZKOVS v. LATVIA

    The requirement of independence, while spelled out by the Court in cases concerning effectiveness of an investigation into alleged unlawful killing by State agents in connection with complaints under Article 2, is also applicable to investigations of allegations of ill-treatment by State agents under Article 3 (see Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004; Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, no. 46430/99, § 66, 5 October 2004; Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 152, 26 November 2009; ÄurÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 85, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Timofejevi, cited above, § 95; Grimailovs, cited above, § 105; and Holodenko, cited above, § 78).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 31206/05

    DJALTI c. BULGARIE

    En matière de privation de liberté, la Cour a considéré que lorsqu'un requérant soutient qu'il a été détenu en méconnaissance du droit interne et lorsque la détention litigieuse a pris fin, une action en réparation, capable d'aboutir à une reconnaissance de la violation alléguée et à l'attribution d'une indemnisation, est en principe un recours effectif qui doit être épuisé si son efficacité en pratique a été dûment établie (Rahmani et Dineva, précité, § 66 ; Gavril Yossifov, précité, § 42 ; Dolenec c. Croatie, no 25282/06, § 184, 26 novembre 2009 ; Kolevi c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 1108/02, 4 décembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 20116/08

    RAHMANI ET DINEVA c. BULGARIE

    En matière de privation de liberté, la Cour a considéré que lorsqu'un requérant soutient qu'il a été détenu en méconnaissance du droit interne et lorsque la détention litigieuse a pris fin, une action en réparation, capable d'aboutir à une reconnaissance de la violation alléguée et à l'attribution d'une indemnisation, est en principe un recours effectif qui doit être épuisé si son efficacité en pratique a été dûment établie (Gavril Yossifov, précité, § 42 ; Dolenec c. Croatie, no 25282/06, § 184, 26 novembre 2009 ; Kolevi c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 1108/02, 4 décembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

    FYODOROV AND FYODOROVA v. UKRAINE

    The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, ECHR 2010-...) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see, for example, Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 165, 26 November 2009).
  • EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 15602/07

    SIMON PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    The accused must have the opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way and without restriction as to the possibility to put all relevant defence arguments before the trial court and thus to influence the outcome of the proceedings (see, for example, Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 220, 9 October 2008 and Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 208, 26 November 2009).
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