Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ILJINS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  The Court emphasises that the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment is so fundamental and central to the system of the protection of human rights that the domestic authority or court dealing with the matter must provide compelling and serious reasons to justify their decision to award significantly lower compensation or no compensation at all in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, § 199, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  The relevant parts of the Administrative Procedure Law (Administrativa procesa likums), which took effect on 1 February 2004, have been summarised in the case of Melnitis v. Latvia (no. 30779/05, §§ 24-26, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  The Court observes that since its judgment in Melnitis, it has received more examples in which the administrative courts have dealt with detainees" complaints about conditions of their detention (see also, in relation to improved clarity of the applicable legislation as of 23 December 2008 and the subsequent practice of administrative courts, Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 111-12, 27 November 2012).

• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 12139/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  Indeed, the Court has already held that where there are doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy, the issue should be tested before the national courts (see Roseiro Bento v. Portugal (dec.), no. 29288/02, ECHR 2004-XII, and more recently, in the context of Article 3 complaints concerning detention conditions, Lienhardt v. France (dec.), no.12139/10, 13 September 2011 and Rhazali and Others v. France (dec.), no. 37568/09, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  To cite a further example, the Court refers to the Government's submissions in Timofejevi and their specific reference to domestic case-law (case no. A42583206) (see Timofejevi v. Latvia, no. 45393/04, § 69, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 39676/05

  KUZMANS AND JAUNKAUSKA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  The Court observes that the Senate has the competence to examine whether or not lower courts have taken into consideration the Court's case-law and, if necessary, may quash their rulings and remit such cases back for new adjudication as regards compensation (see the Statement of facts in the case of Kuzmans and Jankauska v. Latvia, no. 39676/05, communicated on 10 April 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 45520/04

  LARIONOVS AND TESS v. LATVIA

  The Court has also held that where there is a doubt about the effectiveness of a remedy, the issue should be tested before the national courts (see Ignats v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38494/05, § 114, 24 September 2013, and Iļjins v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1179/10, § 37, 5 November 2013).
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 15028/04

  [ENG]

  The Court notes that similar issues to those arising in the present case have been already resolved in other cases against the respondent State (see, among many others, Sapozkovs and Antonovs, both cited above; Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37545/06, 19 November 2013; Iļjins v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1179/10, 5 November 2013; Ignats v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38494/05, 24 September 2013; and Holodenko v. Latvia, no. 17215/07, 2 July 2013).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 38068/08

  PUCE v. LATVIA

  Also in the subsequent cases of Iļjins and Jegorovs the Court followed the same approach (see Iļjins v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1179/10, § 39, 5 November 2013 and Jegorovs v Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 110, 119, 1 July 2014).

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  [ENG]

  As the Court has more recently affirmed in Iļjins v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 1179/10, 5 November 2013, § 37 and the case-law cited therein), since its judgment in Melnitis (cited above), it has received more examples in which the administrative courts have dealt with detainees" complaints about the conditions of their detention.
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 60429/12

  ÄEURBELE v. LATVIA

  Referring to the Court's case-law (they referred to Ignats v. Latvia (dec.), no. 38494/05, § 110, 24 September 2013; Iļjins v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1179/10, § 39, 5 November 2013; Jegorovs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 53281/08, §§ 110 and 119, 1 July 2014; Kočegarovs and Others v. Latvia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA

  With regard to complaints of conditions of detention the Court accepted, in Ignats v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 38494/05, § 113, 24 September 2013), Iļjins v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 1179/10, § 37, 5 November 2013), and, more recently, in Jegorovs (cited above, § 119) that it is incumbent on an applicant, prior to applying to this Court, to take up his grievances, having complied with the extrajudicial procedure, before the administrative courts.
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 55951/16

  IANNINI c. ITALIE

  Notamment, un refus des juridictions internes, caractérisé par une jurisprudence établie, de prendre en compte un certain grief peut dispenser le requérant d'épuiser les voies de recours internes (voir, a contrario: Lienhardt c. France (déc.), no 12139/10, 13 septembre 2011 ; Rhazali et autres c. France (déc.), no 37568/09, 10 avril 2012 ; Iļjins c. Lettonie (déc), no 1179/10, 5 novembre 2013, § 38 in fine ; et Gatto c. Italie (déc.) no 19424/08 mars 2016, § 35 in fine).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 47271/16

  AMBROSIO c. ITALIE

  Notamment, un refus systématique des juridictions internes et caractérisé par une jurisprudence établie de prendre en compte un certain grief peut dispenser le requérant d'épuiser les voies de recours internes (voir, a contrario: Lienhardt c. France (déc.), no 12139/10, 13 septembre 2011 ; Rhazali et autres c. France (déc.), no 37568/09, 10 avril 2012 ; Iļjins v. Latvia (déc), no 1179/10, 5 novembre 2013, § 38 in fine ; et Gatto v. Italy (déc.) no 19424/08, 8 mars 2016, § 35 in fine).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 27979/08

  ABOLINS v. LATVIA

  In the case of Iļjins v. Latvia, the Court reached the same conclusion with regard to a complaint lodged on 6 October 2008 concerning conditions of detention up until 30 August 2008 ((dec.), no. 1179/10, § 39, 5 November 2013).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 1088/10

  [ENG]

  In that connection, the Court accepted in Iļjins v. Latvia ((dec.), no. 1179/10, § 37, 5 November 2013, and the case-law cited therein) that, since its judgment in Melnitis (cited above), it had received more examples in which the administrative courts had dealt with detainees" complaints about the conditions of their detention.