Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HENAF c. FRANCE

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 3 Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HENAF v. FRANCE

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (französisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.01.2002 - 65436/01
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person's absconding or causing injury or damage (see Raninen, cited above, p. 2822, § 56), and the particular circumstances of a transfer to hospital for medical treatment (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 47, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  The assessment of this level is 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, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  In addition, according to the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 18-19, §§ 36-40).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, "having regard to the fact that the Convention is a 'living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions'" (see the following judgments: Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 15-16, § 31; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 40, § 102; and Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, pp.
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 37760/97

  CHARLIER contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  As to the refusal of legal aid, the Government considered it justified because the application was manifestly ill-founded (see Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, ECHR 2000-IX, and Charlier v. France (dec.), no. 37760/97, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, "having regard to the fact that the Convention is a 'living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions'" (see the following judgments: Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 15-16, § 31; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 40, § 102; and Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, pp.
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  Thus, the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic bodies, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  Lastly, they referred to cases in which the Court had held that handcuffing did not amount to a violation of Article 3 (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, and Raninen v. Finland, judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  The Court points out that the purpose of Article 35 of the Convention is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Convention institutions (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 18, § 33, and Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports 1996-II, p. 571, § 33).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 65436/01

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, "having regard to the fact that the Convention is a 'living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions'" (see the following judgments: Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 15-16, § 31; Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 40, § 102; and Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, pp.
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 20.07.2000 - 33951/96

  CALOC v. FRANCE

• BVerfG, 19.01.2023 - 2 BvR 1719/21

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Sicherungsverwahrten gegen die …

  So stellt die eintägige Fesselung eines Gefangenen an sein Krankenbett eine unmenschliche Behandlung dar, wenn in Anbetracht von Alter, Gesundheitszustand und dem Fehlen konkreter Anhaltspunkte für ein von dem Gefangenen ausgehendes Sicherheitsrisiko die Fesselung auch in Anbetracht von zwei anwesenden Sicherheitskräften als unverhältnismäßig erscheint (vgl. EGMR, Hénaf v. France, Urteil vom 27. November 2003, Nr. 65436/01, §§ 56 ff.).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Such an absolutist approach to Article 3 would mean, for instance, that practices such as head shaving or shackling could act as a bar to extradition because the Court had found these forms of ill-treatment to be in breach of Article 3 (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, §§ 114-121, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); and Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 45-89, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  In addition, according to the "generally recognised principles of international law", there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, §§ 36-40, Series A no. 40; Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, § 32, ECHR 2003 XI; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 86).

 
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 7309/04

  VEFA SERDAR c. TURQUIE

  Par ailleurs, force est d'admettre que les conditions dénoncées en l'espèce sont sans commune mesure avec celles observées dans d'autres affaires comparables (voir, par exemple, Price, précité, §§ 28-30, Mouisel, précité, §§ 46 et 47, Henaf c. France, no 65436/01, §§ 49 et suivants, CEDH 2003-XI, Vincent, précité, §§ 94-103, Hüseyin Yıldırım, précité, § 84, et Engel c. Hongrie, no 46857/06, §§ 27 et 30, 20 mai 2010) et, plus particulièrement, elles ne posent pas un problème plus préoccupant que celui examiné dans l'affaire Zarzycki c. Pologne, qui concernait les conditions de détention d'un détenu amputé des deux bras, et où la Cour avait abouti à un constat de non-violation (arrêt précité, §§ 106 à 125).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04

  ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Thus, application of measures of restraint to an applicant in a private setting still gave rise to a violation of Article 3 in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 51 and 56, ECHR 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Thus, handcuffing the applicant in a private setting still gave rise to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Henaf v. France, no. 65436/01, §§ 51 and 56, ECHR 2003-XI; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, §§ 57 and 58, 27 March 2007).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 72194/01

  DOGANc. TURQUIE

  De plus, selon les « principes de droit international généralement reconnus », certaines circonstances particulières peuvent dispenser le requérant de l'obligation d'épuiser les recours internes qui s'offrent à lui (Henaf c. France, no 65436/01, § 32, CEDH 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 41124/02

  FILIP c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour a considéré que les allégations du requérant, dont le caractère au moins défendable ressortait de la réalité non contestée que le parquet avait ordonné son internement psychiatrique sans que l'on eût demandé l'avis d'un médecin expert, étaient suffisamment graves pour justifier une telle enquête (voir, mutatis mutandis, Hénaf c. France, no 65436/01, §§ 36 -39, CEDH 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 16308/02

  PECHEUR c. LUXEMBOURG

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime que le requérant n'a pas prouvé en quoi la mesure d'entrave était disproportionnée au regard des nécessités de la sécurité (voir, a fortiori, Henaf c. France, no 65436/01, § 56, CEDH 2003-XI).
• EGMR, 25.05.2004 - 48577/99

  SOLLER contre la REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  La Cour rappelle que la règle de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes doit s'appliquer avec une certaine souplesse et sans formalisme excessif, en tenant dûment compte du contexte (voir, par exemple, Hénaf c. France, no 65436/01, § 32, CEDH 2003-XI) ; il suffit que l'intéressé ait soulevé devant les autorités nationales « au moins en substance, et dans les conditions et délais prescrits par le droit interne » les griefs qu'il entend formuler par la suite à Strasbourg (Akdivar et autres c. Turquie, arrêt du 16 septembre 1996, Recueil 1996-IV, § 69 ; Fressoz et Roire c. France [GC], no 29183/95, § 37, CEDH 1999-I).