Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHCHUKIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03
• EGMR, 02.07.2014 - 14030/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 57575/00

  SEJDOVIC et SULEJMANOVIC contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  The Court notes that the scope of application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 applies only to aliens "lawfully resident" in the territory of the State in question (see Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic (dec.), no. 57575/00, 14 March 2002, and Sulejmanovic and Sultanovic v. Italy (dec.), no. 57574/00, 14 March 2002).
• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  A "right to nationality" similar to that in Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, (see Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II).
• EKMR, 13.01.1993 - 19373/92

  VOULFOVITCH AND OULIANOVA v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  So, for example, an alien whose visa or residence permit has expired cannot, at least normally, be regarded as being "lawfully resident in the country" (see for example, Voulfovitch and Oulianova v. Sweden, no. 19373/92, Commission decision of 13 January 1993, DR 74, p. 199, and Bolat v. Russia, no. 14139/03, § 76, ECHR 2006-XI).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  The Court notes at the outset that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies, making no provision for exceptions and with no derogation from it being permissible, as provided by Article 15 § 2 (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others, cited above, § 93).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  The Court reiterates that the object of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to allow the national authorities (primarily the judicial authorities) to address the allegation made of violation of a Convention right and, where appropriate, to afford redress before that allegation is submitted to the Court (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see, among other authorities, Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII; Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, §§ 52 and 53, 30 September 2004; and Günaydın v. Turkey, no. 27526/95, §§ 30-32, 13 October 2005).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  In connection with the above the Government stressed that the applicants, unlike the applicants in the case of Conka v. Belgium (no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I), had no place of abode and/or work in the Republic.
• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 16837/02

  OSTOJIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  The Court points out in this connection that applicants have been required to exhaust domestic remedies even where they are not within the jurisdiction of the respondent State (see for example, Abbasi v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 21713/06, 5 July 2007, and Ostojic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 16837/02, 26 September 2002).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see, among other authorities, Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII; Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, §§ 52 and 53, 30 September 2004; and Günaydın v. Turkey, no. 27526/95, §§ 30-32, 13 October 2005).
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 27526/95

  GÜNAYDIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 21713/06

  ABBASI v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE