Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,69128
EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,69128)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.06.2007 - 57830/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,69128)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Juni 2007 - 57830/00 (https://dejure.org/2007,69128)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,69128) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

    Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II; and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 95).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 101, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 40653/98

    IORGOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 11.03.2004 - 42346/98

    G.B. v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    In assessing whether a restrictive regime may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the regime, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Messina v. Italy (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V; Van der Ven, cited above, § 51; Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, §§ 82-84 and 86, 11 March 2004; and G.B. v. Bulgaria, no. 42346/98, §§ 83-85 and 87, 11 March 2004).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

    PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    Applying its established case-law (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 45) to the facts of the present case and, in particular, noting that the overall length of the criminal proceedings had been two years and four months for concluding a preliminary investigation and a trial involving two levels of jurisdiction, the Court does not find that the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was breached.
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    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 Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 59, 25 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    Applying its established case-law (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI; and Pedersen and Baadsgaard, cited above, § 45) to the facts of the present case and, in particular, noting that the overall length of the criminal proceedings had been two years and four months for concluding a preliminary investigation and a trial involving two levels of jurisdiction, the Court does not find that the "reasonable time" requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was breached.
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 37555/97

    O'HARA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    Facts which raise a suspicion need not be of the same level as those necessary to bring a charge (see O'Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, § 36, ECHR 2001-X).
  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

    POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00
    It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, as recent authorities, Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-II, and Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 130, ECHR 2003-V).
  • EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

    YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

    Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben

  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

    DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    They were also beyond minimum recommendatory standards established by the CPT single and multiple occupancy cells, 4 m² of living space for a single inmate in multi-occupancy cells (see Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, § 77, 27 May 2008), 7 m² per detainee in single occupancy police cells (see Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 137, 28 June 2007) and 9 m² of living space in single prison cells (Report to the UNMIK on the visit to Kosovo carried out by the CPT from 21 to 29 March 2007, Strasbourg, 20 January 2009, § 59).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 31206/05

    DJALTI c. BULGARIE

    En l'absence de voies de recours susceptibles de remédier à la violation alléguée, le délai de six mois prévu à l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention a couru au plus tard à compter de ce jour (Maletchkov c. Bulgarie, no 57830/00, § 61, 28 juin 2007).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 41698/04

    TADEVOSYAN v. ARMENIA

    Nothing suggests that the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities that could compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007, and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 31237/03

    KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA

    Nothing suggests that in either case the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities that could compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007; and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 22387/05

    KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

    Nothing suggests that the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities to compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007, and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

    MKHITARYAN v. ARMENIA

    Nothing suggests that in either case the applicant was allowed any out-of-cell activities that could compensate for this serious lack of space (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, § 49, ECHR 2006-III; Malechkov v. Bulgaria, no. 57830/00, § 141, 28 June 2007, and, by contrast, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
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