Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TREHOLT v. NORWAY

  Art. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TREHOLT c. NORVEGE

  Art. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EKMR, 15.05.1980 - 8317/78

  McFEELEY et al. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  Under Article 3 (Art. 3), the Commission has previously been confronted with a number of cases concerning prison conditions, including isolation of varying duration and severity (cf. inter alia No. 6038/73, Dec. 11.7.73, Collection 44 p. 115; No. 7854/77, Dec. 12.7.78, D.R. 12 p. 185; No. 8317/78, Dec. 15.5.80, D.R. 30 p. 44).

  It has, however, drawn a distinction between this kind of isolation and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons; it does not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).

• EGMR, 18.01.1978 - 5310/71

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

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  It has, however, drawn a distinction between this kind of isolation and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons; it does not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).
• EKMR, 08.07.1978 - 7572/76

  ENSSLIN, BAADER and RASPE v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  It has, however, drawn a distinction between this kind of isolation and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons; it does not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).

 
• EKMR, 12.07.1978 - 7854/77

  BONZI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  Under Article 3 (Art. 3), the Commission has previously been confronted with a number of cases concerning prison conditions, including isolation of varying duration and severity (cf. inter alia No. 6038/73, Dec. 11.7.73, Collection 44 p. 115; No. 7854/77, Dec. 12.7.78, D.R. 12 p. 185; No. 8317/78, Dec. 15.5.80, D.R. 30 p. 44).
• EKMR, 11.07.1973 - 6038/73

  X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  Under Article 3 (Art. 3), the Commission has previously been confronted with a number of cases concerning prison conditions, including isolation of varying duration and severity (cf. inter alia No. 6038/73, Dec. 11.7.73, Collection 44 p. 115; No. 7854/77, Dec. 12.7.78, D.R. 12 p. 185; No. 8317/78, Dec. 15.5.80, D.R. 30 p. 44).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

  Auszug aus EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  The further elements in Article 3 (Art. 3), namely inhuman and degrading punishment, have been considered by the Court in the Tyrer case (Eur. Court H.R., Tyrer judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26).

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Dès lors, bien que la Convention ne confère pas de manière générale un droit à être libéré sous condition ni celui de voir réexaminer sa peine par les autorités internes, judiciaires ou administratives en vue d'une remise ou d'une interruption définitive de celle-ci (voir, entre autres, Kotälla et Bamber, toutes deux précitées, et Treholt c. Norvège, no 14610/89, décision de la Commission du 9 juillet 1991, DR 71, p. 168), il ressort clairement de la jurisprudence pertinente que l'existence d'un dispositif permettant d'envisager la question de la libération conditionnelle est un facteur à prendre en compte pour apprécier la compatibilité d'une peine perpétuelle avec l'article 3. A ce propos, la Cour relève toutefois que le choix que fait l'Etat d'un régime de justice pénale, y compris le réexamen de la peine et les modalités de libération, échappe en principe au contrôle européen exercé par elle, pour autant que le système retenu ne méconnaisse pas les principes de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Achour c. France [GC], no 67335/01, § 51, CEDH 2006-IV).