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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA and 8 other applications

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

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  In other words, in this domain preventive and compensatory remedies have to be complementary to be considered effective (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 96-98 and 214, 10 January 2012).
• 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, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 38321/17

  However, the powers and procedural guarantees that an authority possesses are relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 182, 27 January 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  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, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  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, 17.04.2012 - 20071/07

  [ENG]

  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, 31.10.2019 - 21613/16

  ULEMEK v. CROATIA and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05

  FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 35377/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  [ENG]
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 14.02.2014 - 4/12
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 6878/14

  LAZORIVA v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 4242/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 58361/12

  X v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 31.08.2018 - 12085/16

  ENGELHARDT v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 14893/02

  HARIS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 84/18

  ÖZBEK AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 73693/01

  BABJAK and OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 9210/02

  BALAZ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/06

  Eigener Nach-Sicht-Wechsel; Protest

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 55792/20

  ADAMCO v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Rn. 31 The relevant legal provisions are laid out in Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 38321/17, §§ 78, 79, 81 and 82, 31 March 2022).

  Rn. 52 As to the first part of the Government's objections under that provision, the Court notes that in its judgment in the case of Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 38321/17, §§ 118-26, 31 March 2022) it extensively examined and rejected the effectiveness of an action for the protection of personal integrity as a remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in similar circumstances.

• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12

  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, Pişkin, 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, 28.11.2023 - 3501/20

  SCHMIDT 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, 12.12.2024 - 56545/21

  RIBÁR v. SLOVAKIA

  The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness, there being no obligation to have recourse to remedies that are inadequate or ineffective (see Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, § 113, 31 March 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 483/10

  STANISLAV LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, the impugned measures constituted an interference with the applicant's private life, which involved, inter alia, imposition of a stricter regime of detention and transfers to different prisons located in remote places (see Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, § 140, 31 March 2022, and Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, cited above §§ 837-838).
• EGMR, 07.05.2026 - 42029/22

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Rn. 18 However, the Court's role is conceptually different from that assigned to the CPT (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, § 113, 20 October 2016) and when examining complaints made under Article 3 of the Convention, it must take account of the cumulative effects of the conditions of the applicants' detention, along with their specific allegations and the length of the period during which they were detained in the conditions in question (see Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, § 184, 31 March 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 55595/17

  ZELA v. ALBANIA

  17153/11 and 29 others, §§ 71-73, 25 March 2014; and Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, § 113, 31 March 2022).
• EGMR, 27.04.2023 - 35673/18

  MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA

  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 - 53573/22 (anhängig)

  KRÁTKY v. SLOVAKIA

  In particular, having regard to the procedural obligations inherent in Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 163-5, 172-74, 31 March 2022), have the authorities afforded due respect for the interests safeguarded by this provision, in light of:.
• EGMR - 13875/20 (anhängig)

  I.B. c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires

  (a) Eu égard à l'effet cumulé des mesures de sécurité appliquées aux requérants dans le cadre de leur détention à la prison de haute sécurité de Monsanto, les requérants ont-ils été soumis à des traitements inhumains et dégradants à ladite prison, en violation de l'article 3 de la Convention (voir Piechowicz c. Pologne, no 20071/07, §§ 158-165, 17 avril 2012, Bamouhammad c. Belgique, no 47687/13, §§ 115-118 et 133, 17 novembre 2015, Maslák c. Slovaquie (no 2), no 38321/17, §§ 182-186, 31 mars 2022 et, à titre d'exemple, Fernandes c. Portugal [Comité], nos 33023/17 et 56476/17, §§ 16-19, 16 janvier 2024) ?.
• EGMR, 19.02.2026 - 43341/22

  KAVECANSKÝ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR - 28059/25 (anhängig)

  ULEMEK v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 22083/21

  KONECNÁ v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 41510/16

  PAPAJ v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 32315/23 (anhängig)

  CAMPOTA RODRIGUES c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 34232/22

  KOVÁČIK v. SLOVAKIA