Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17, 82925/17, 156/18, 7426/18, 9755/18, 14907/18, 29635/18, 29636/18, 35668/18 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (25)
- KAG Mainz, 22.05.2018 - M 1/18
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
OTHER FACTS CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT 72. The applicant brought a civil action in the Banská Bystrica District Court (case no. 9C 1/18), seeking protection of his privacy and compensation from the administration of BBK Prison.These included an action in the Banská Bystrica District Court seeking the protection of his personal integrity (case no. 9C 1/18) (see paragraphs and 72 above), which the Government considered to constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of the Convention in respect of the situation in question.
The applicant pointed out that the proceedings before the Banská Bystrica District Court (case no. 9C 1/18) were unrelated to the subject matter of his applications to the Court; he furthermore stated that any other civil-law remedies which he had resorted to at the domestic level had been filed merely by way of precaution, even though he did not really consider them to be effective for the purposes of the Convention.
- EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 598/17
KUDLÁCOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
His efforts were unsuccessful, the final decision being given by the Constitutional Court on 28 September 2017 (III. ÚS 598/17).Application no. 9755/18 (introduced on 12 February 2018) concerns (i) the lack of any separate decision regarding the applicant's initial placement in the HSU in BBK Prison (and the applicant's treatment and conditions in that unit), (ii) the way in which the PPS and the Constitutional Court dealt with his complaints in that respect, and (iii) the applicant's alleged inability to comment on observations made by the prison administration in reply to his constitutional complaint of 2 July 2017 (Constitutional Court's file no. III. ÚS 598/17).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 THE CONVENTION 193. The applicant complained that in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court (file nos. I. ÚS 429/17 and III. ÚS 598/17 - see paragraphs 28 and 59 above) he had been denied a fair hearing, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:.
- BFH, 11.02.2020 - XI B 69/19
Notwendige Verbindung von Verfahren bei doppelter Rechtshängigkeit - Rechtsfolge …
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
However, the discontinuation of the proceedings had been preceded by the refusal of his request for an exemption from the duty to pay the court fee, in the examination of which the Constitutional Court had confirmed (paragraphs 21 and 22 of its decision of 6 March 2019 file no. I. ÚS 70/19) that its case-law in respect of the jurisdiction of the PPS in matters that the applicant had previously attempted to raise before the administrative judiciary applied, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of his civil action.According to the applicant, in its decision of 6 March 2019 (I. ÚS 70/19) (see paragraph 67 above) the Constitutional Court confirmed that the position that the administrative-law judiciary had no jurisdiction in matters concerning prison conditions extended also to actions for the protection of personal integrity in civil courts.
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07
PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
It has not been disputed, and the Court notes, that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable to the facts of the present case (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 68-69, ECHR 2003-II; Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, §§ 125-127, ECHR 2009; and Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 207, 17 April 2012). - EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99
VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
It has not been disputed, and the Court notes, that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable to the facts of the present case (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2000-X; Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 68-69, ECHR 2003-II; Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, §§ 125-127, ECHR 2009; and Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 207, 17 April 2012). - EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
While detention, like any other measure depriving a person of his or her liberty, entails various limitations on his or her rights and freedoms, that person does not forfeit his or her Convention rights merely because of his or her status as a detainee, including the rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention; thus, restrictions on those rights must be justified in each case (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 106 and 116-17, ECHR 2015, and the authorities cited therein). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
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). - EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08
CSÜLLÖG v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
As regards the specific matter of special prison regimes, such as detention in a high-security department, the Court has already held that such detention, be it on remand or following a criminal conviction, does not in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 80-82 and 138, ECHR 2006-IX; Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 13-16, 7 June 2011; Piechowicz, cited above, §§ 161 and 162, 17 April 2012; and Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 93, 21 July 2005). - EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
In other words, the applicant does not make any specific and substantiated complaints in relation to the HSU regime in terms of its material conditions (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269), and neither does he complain of any specific particularly harsh treatment (see, for example, Csüllög, cited above, § 33; Piechowicz, cited above, §§ 174 and 175; Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 138 and 140, 27 November 2012). - EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 84/18
ÖZBEK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17
82925/17 (introduced on 4 December 2017), 29635/18 and 29636/18 (both introduced on 8 June 2018) concern restrictions imposed on the applicant in Leopoldov Prison by decisions dated 23 February and 3 June 2016 issued by its governor, with regard to: recreational activities and receiving open visits; the way in which the authorities had handled his complaints; the applicant's alleged lack of access to a court and of an effective domestic remedy in that regard; and the applicant's alleged lack of any opportunity to comment on observations made by the prison administration in reply to his constitutional complaint of 19 May 2017 (Constitutional Court's file nos. I. ÚS 429/17, II. ÚS 730/17 and II. ÚS 86/18). - EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16
ULEMEK v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10
Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände
- EGMR, 31.08.2018 - 12085/16
ENGELHARDT v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05
FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 73693/01
BABJAK and OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 6878/14
LAZORIVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 4242/07
RZAKHANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 14.02.2014 - 4/12
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05
MICHALKO v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 58361/12
ZOLTÁN VARGA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 9210/02
BALAZ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02
HARIS v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09
RAZVYAZKIN v. RUSSIA
- RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/06
Eigener Nach-Sicht-Wechsel; Protest
- EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 3501/20
SCHMIDT AND SMIGOL v. ESTONIA
The Court agrees with the reasoning of the Supreme Court (see paragraph 74 above) that prisoners subjected to long-term solitary confinement cannot always be expected to have the necessary awareness of and capacity to identify their own mental health problems and to ask for specialist intervention (compare and contrast Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 189-191, 31 March 2022). - EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12
GIULIANO GERMANO v. ITALY
Having regard to the applicant's complaints, the Court will assess whether the applicable legal framework allowed the applicant to be involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, § 159, 31 March 2022), whether the measure was amenable to a sufficient judicial review (see, mutatis mutandis, Pi?Ÿkin, cited above, § 209, and Karastelev and Others, cited above, §§ 94-97, and the cases cited therein), and whether the legal basis regulated the duration of the measure (see, mutatis mutandis, Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 143, ECHR 2009, and Falzarano v. Italy (dec.), no. 73357/14, § 19, 15 June 2021). - EGMR, 27.04.2023 - 35673/18
MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 3)
Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above regarding the relevant national review mechanism (see paragraph 17), the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 129-30 and 202, 31 March 2022). - EGMR - 9152/23 (anhängig)
SKUBAN v. SLOVAKIA
Given the allegedly routine and pro forma nature of the review by the PPS and the Constitutional Court, did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 167-68 and 175, 31 March 2022)?. - EGMR - 8280/23 (anhängig)
TATIC v. SLOVAKIA
Given the allegedly routine and pro forma nature of the review by the PPS and the Constitutional Court, did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 167-68 and 175, 31 March 2022)?.