Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1998,22843
EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94 (https://dejure.org/1998,22843)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.10.1998 - 24760/94 (https://dejure.org/1998,22843)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. Oktober 1998 - 24760/94 (https://dejure.org/1998,22843)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,22843) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ASSENOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

    Art. 3, Art. ... 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 25, Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 26, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
    Non-violation de l'Art. 3 (mauvais traitements) Violation de l'Art. 3 (enquête effective) Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 Violation de l'Art. 13 Non-violation de l'Art. 3 (détention) Non-violation de l'Art. 5-1 Violation de l'Art. 5-3 (juge ou autre magistrat) ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ASSENOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 25, Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 26, Art. 27, Art. 27 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 34 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (abuse of process) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 3 (ill-treatment) Violation of Art. 3 (effective investigation) No violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 No violation ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

    SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the above-mentioned Schiesser judgment, p. 13, §§ 30-31, the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
  • EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

    MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    Although it is not always necessary that the procedure under Article 5 § 4 be attended by the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for criminal or civil litigation (see the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, p. 11, § 22), it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question.
  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 17977/91

    KAMPANIS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see the above-mentioned Schiesser judgment, p. 13, §§ 30-31, the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 19, § 51, and the Kampanis v. Greece judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 318-B, p. 45, § 47).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

    Schiesser ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    Before an "officer" can be said to exercise "judicial power" within the meaning of this provision, he or she must satisfy certain conditions providing a guarantee to the person detained against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13, § 31).
  • EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

    HUBER c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality may be open to doubt (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
  • EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

    BRINCAT v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it appears at that time that the "officer" may later intervene in subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and impartiality may be open to doubt (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, § 43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, p. 12, § 21).
  • EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

    LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    The Court agrees that since the Government's preliminary objection concerning an alleged abuse of process was not raised before the Commission at the admissibility stage of the proceedings, the Government is estopped from raising it before the Court (see, amongst many other authorities, the Loizidou v. Turkey judgment of 23 March 1995, (preliminary objections), Series A no. 310, p. 19, § 44).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    This investigation, as with that under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, in relation to Article 2 of the Convention, the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, the Kaya v. Turkey judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86, and the Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2438, § 98).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.10.1998 - 24760/94
    In assessing the evidence before it, the Commission had regard to the principle that where an individual alleges to have been injured by ill-treatment in custody, the Government are under an obligation to provide a complete and sufficient explanation as to how the injuries were caused (see the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34, and the above-mentioned Aksoy judgment, p. 2278, § 61).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05

    TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE

    La Cour rappelle ensuite que, lorsqu'un individu affirme de manière défendable avoir subi des traitements contraires à l'article 3 de la part de la police ou d'autres autorités comparables, cette disposition requiert qu'il y ait une enquête officielle effective (Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 24760/94, § 102, 28 octobre 1998, Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, § 131, CEDH 2000-IV, et Sorokins et Sorokina c. Lettonie, no 45476/04, § 95, 28 mai 2013).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 33376/07

    PIRUZYAN v. ARMENIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, among other authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 26986/03

    GALSTYAN v. ARMENIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2000 - 53176/99

    MIKULIC v. CROATIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 8088/05

    GABRIELYAN v. ARMENIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see, among other authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 23978/06

    KHACHATRYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

    WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR - 10309/03

    [ENG]

    If so, did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment in compliance with the requirements of Articles 3 of the Convention (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 24760/94, § 102, Reports, 1998-VIII, and, mutatis mutandis, Bati and Others v. Turkey, no. 3097/96, §§ 133-149, ECHR-2004-IV (extracts))?.
  • EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 59109/08

    HELSINKI COMMITTEE OF ARMENIA v. ARMENIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 34320/04

    HAKOBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

    In order to comply with the rule, normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria no. 24760/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-VIII).
  • EGMR, 13.03.2003 - 33878/96

    A.B. contre la POLOGNE

  • EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 49031/12

    KALLIPOLITOU c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 52316/09

    MATEVOSYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 27715/95

    BERLINSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 34197/15

    MITEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 23341/06

    MARTIROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 21790/04

    YUSUF GEZER c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 38978/03

    SARUKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  • EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 28861/03

    KHUSEIN AZIEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 459/16 (anhängig)

    KOUTRA AND KATZAKI v. GREECE

  • EKMR, 03.12.1997 - 26320/95

    LAAKSO v. FINLAND

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