Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Effective domestic remedy;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  The authority referred to in Article 13 of the Convention does not need to be a judicial one (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 67, Series A no. 28, and, more recently, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 149, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  The Court thus considers that, as the Constitutional Court's case-law currently stands, the applicant's complaints cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and/or non-compliance with the six-month time limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2009, and cases cited therein; see also paragraph 77 above).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  As regards the applicant's complaint related to the visiting rights by his then partner, I.P., the Court refers to its case-law with respect to visiting rights of prisoners (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 123-126, ECHR 2015, and Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, §§ 84-89, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 24626/09

  X v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  According to the Court's case-law this measure, in so far as it entailed the applicant's separation from the general prison population, required the existence of effective safeguards (see X v. Turkey, no. 24626/09, §§ 37-54, 9 October 2012; and Pe?ˆaranda Soto v. Malta, no. 16680/14, § 76, 19 December 2017).
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 35090/09

  POLYAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  As regards the applicant's complaint related to the visiting rights by his then partner, I.P., the Court refers to its case-law with respect to visiting rights of prisoners (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 123-126, ECHR 2015, and Polyakova and Others v. Russia, nos. 35090/09 and 3 others, §§ 84-89, 7 March 2017).

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  42525/07 and 60800/08, § 98, 10 January 2012, and Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, § 86, 31 October 2019, as regards ongoing or resolved poor conditions of detention; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII, as regards removal to another State where the person concerned risks ill-treatment; Selahattin Demirta?Ÿ v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 207-08, 22 December 2020, as regards ongoing or completed deprivation of liberty; Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII, as regards unreasonably lengthy proceedings; Baczkowski and Others v. Poland, no. 1543/06, §§ 81-83, 3 May 2007, as regards a ban on assemblies whose dates were crucial for the organisers; Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, §§ 91-92, 9 July 2015, as regards structural difficulties preventing a disabled person from obtaining education; and Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 32439/19

  LEROY c. FRANCE

  Appréciation de la Cour Principes généraux 51. La Cour renvoie aux principes généraux relatifs à l'épuisement des voies de recours internes et à l'effectivité des recours internes aux fins de l'article 13 de la Convention dans les affaires portant sur les conditions de détention tels qu'ils ont été énoncés et rappelés dans l'affaire Ulemek c. Croatie (no 21613/16, §§ 71 à 80, 31 octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 9671/15

  J.M.B. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Dans l'affaire Ulemek c. Croatie (no 21613/16, § 89, 31 octobre 2019, 1a Cour explique dans les termes suivants le sens et l'objet de pareil délai:.

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 37522/16

  VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

  Domestic materials 21. The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16, §§ 38-57, 31 October 2019).

  m of personal space for at least 152 days out of his 432-day detention there (see paragraph 5 above; see also the Court's findings of a violation of Article 3 in respect of stays in Zagreb Prison in Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, §§ 128-31, 31 October 2019, and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, §§ 60-61, 6 November 2012).

• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 49439/21

  HANZEVACKI v. CROATIA

  The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16, §§ 38-57, 31 October 2019).

  As regards the domestic remedies and the competence of the Constitutional Court to examine cases concerning conditions of detention, in its leading judgment in Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16, 31 October 2019) the Court explained that the Croatian legal system provided for both preventive and compensatory remedies in respect of inadequate prison conditions.

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 4312/13

  TARRICONE c. ITALIE

  Cette application, à mon avis, aurait dû être conforme au critère énoncé dans l'arrêt Ananyev, § 78, que la majorité elle-même cite au paragraphe 59 de son arrêt (voir le critère réaffirmé dans l'arrêt Ulemek c. Croatie, no 21613/16, § 92, 31 octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  On the facts of this case, the examination of the compliance with that requirement is linked to the aspect of compliance with the six-month period, which the Court must examine of its own motion (see Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, § 78, 31 October 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 46130/14

  VENKEN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion à maintes reprises d'expliquer la complémentarité des recours préventifs et compensatoires en matière de conditions matérielles de détention contraires à l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, pour un rappel récent de ces principes, Ulemek c. Croatie, no 21613/16, §§ 71-74, 31 octobre 2019, et Shmelev et autres c. Russie (déc.), nos 41743/17 et 16 autres, §§ 85-104, 17 mars 2020).
• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 35614/19

  ILERDE AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  As a rule, it would be unduly formalistic to require applicants to exercise a remedy which the relevant domestic authorities would not oblige them to exhaust (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 76, and Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, § 77, 31 October 2019).
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 25338/16

  BARBOTIN c. FRANCE

  S'agissant, d'autre part, de la mise à la charge du requérant des frais d'expertise, la Cour rappelle le principe selon lequel les règles en matière de frais de procédure ne doivent pas faire peser un fardeau excessif sur le détenu dont l'action est fondée (Neshkov et autres précité, § 184; Ulemek c. Croatie, no 21613/16, §§ 107-108, 31 octobre 2019, Sukachov c. Ukraine, no 14057/17, § 115, 30 janvier 2020 et, par exemple, Slavtcho Kostov c. Bulgarie, no 28674/03, § 62, 27 novembre 2008) et considère que tel a été le cas en l'espèce.
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 77457/13

  DIKAIOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 39087/15

  VOLODYA AVETISYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 39571/16

  HUBER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 5471/14

  AMARIKYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 30084/15

  CHATZILASKARAKI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 64579/16

  BOSNJAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 38732/18

  LAURENT c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR - 39453/23 (anhängig)

  SAKKAS c. GRÈCE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR - 583/24 (anhängig)

  SAHMPATZIDIS c. GRÈCE et 2 autres affaires