Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (38)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 15670/18

  Vorfall in Kroatien: Recht auf Leben an EU-Außengrenze verletzt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  The same holds for teenagers (see, mutatis mutandis, M.H. and Others v. Croatia, nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18, § 190, 18 November 2021).

  In conclusion, bearing in mind the above considerations, particularly their age, the total length of their detention in both venues, the material conditions in the HIRC and its lack of appropriateness for accommodating children, as well as the vulnerability of the minor applicants and the effects of detention on a minor's psychological condition, the Court considers that the conditions of detention of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment (compare Rahimi v. Greece, no. 8687/08, § 86, 5 April 2011, Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar, cited above, §§ 113-14; and M.H. and Others v. Croatia, nos. 15670/18 and 43115/18, § 190, 18 November 2021, concerning teenagers).

• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22

  A.D. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  The relevant parts of the Report to the Maltese Government on the visit to Malta carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 17 to 22 September 2020, published in March 2021[3], as well as those of the report of 15 February 2022 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights following her visit to Malta from 11 to 16 October 2021 (CommDH(2022)1) are set out in A.D. v. Malta (no. 12427/22, §§ 64-65, 17 October 2023).

  Rn. 33 The Government submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, namely constitutional redress proceedings, reiterating the submissions made in previous cases (see most recently A.D. v. Malta, no. 12427/22, §§ 79-80, 17 October 2023) and referring to a further case (Repubblika vs the State Advocate, Rik. 472/2022, instituted on 12 September 2022, and decided at first instance on 20 January 2023 and on appeal on 31 May 2023).

• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012).

• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  The difference between deprivation and restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 80, 23 February 2017, with the references therein; see also Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, § 36, 11 October 2016).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39472/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  This situation is rendered even more serious by the fact that at no stage did the authorities ascertain whether the placement in immigration detention of the applicants, all of whom, except for the first applicant, had claimed to be minors already at the hearing of 6 December 2022, was a measure of last resort for which no alternative was available (see, mutatis mutandis, A.D. v. Malta, cited above, § 117; Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar, cited above, § 146; and Popov v. France, nos. 39472/07 and 39474/07, § 119, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  Furthermore, a "court" must always be "established by law", failing which it would lack the legitimacy required in a democratic society to hear individual cases (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 81, 28 November 2002).
• EGMR, 08.11.2021 - 49868/19

  EGMR verurteilt Polen wegen umstrittener Justizreform - EGMR verurteilt Polen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  The higher a tribunal was placed in the judicial hierarchy, the more demanding the applicable selection criteria should be (see Dolińska-Ficek and Ozimek v. Poland, nos. 49868/19 and 57511/19, § 273, 8 November 2021, and Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson, cited above, §§ 220 and 222).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress as far as possible the effects (see Scozzari and Giunta, [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Grabowski v. Poland, no. 57722/12, § 66, 30 June 2015).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  However, neither Article 6 nor any other provision of the Convention requires States to comply with any theoretical constitutional concepts regarding the permissible limits of the powers' interaction (see Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98 and 3 others, § 193, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  Maestri ./. Italien
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Verstoß Maltas gegen Art. 3 EMRK
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 26291/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 22696/16

  RAOUFI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 66448/17

  EGMR verurteilt Türkei: Haft von Ex-Richter verstößt gegen Menschenrechte
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.03.2023 - 21329/18

  J.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 4633/15

  BIIMURZAEVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08

  Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 53659/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 43800/12

  TSANOVA-GECHEVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 59152/08

  N. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 66616/10

  KOHEN v. TURKEY and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 43237/13

  CATANA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71645/13

  YANEZ PINON v. MALTA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 57722/12

  GRABOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 36199/15

  ABDILLA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 02.04.2019 - 62676/16

  ABOYA BOA JEAN v. MALTA
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 51839/99

  GÖKÇE AND DEMIREL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 8687/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 5797/17

  DARBOE AND CAMARA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19

  FEILAZOO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY v. MALTA
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 50520/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  S.H. v. MALTA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 63386/16

  MANSOURI c. ITALIE

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour ne voit pas d'obstacle à l'accessibilité des recours en question (voir, a contrario, Rahimi c. Grèce, no 8687/08, § 120, 5 avril 2011, et J.B. et autres c Malte, no 1766/23, 22 octobre 2024).
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA

  Accordingly, it did not share the opinion of the Government that Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires applicants alleging a violation of Article 13 of the Convention to exhaust any separate domestic remedies pertaining to that claim and thus dismissed this objection (see Diallo v. the Czech Republic, no. 20493/07, §§ 49-58, 23 June 2011, and J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, § 61, 22 October 2024).
• EGMR, 19.02.2026 - 14396/24

  SIMONCINI v. SAN MARINO

  In relation to the Government's argument that no evidence of payment had been made, the Court notes that that the applicant has signed a power of attorney mandating the legal representative to bring these proceedings before the Court, and thus he has entered into a contractual relationship with the legal representative who is entitled to recover relevant dues, concerning at least these proceedings before this Court, as per invoice issued even assuming that these have not yet been paid (see J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, § 175, 22 October 2024).

• EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 4986/24

  A AND B v. MALTA

  Rn. 75 However, the Court finds it opportune to mention that it has repeatedly noted that constitutional redress proceedings are cumbersome and lengthy proceedings (see, for example, Mikalauskas v. Malta, no. 4458/10, § 97, 23 July 2013 and the case-law cited therein in connection with Article 5 § 4, and J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, §§ 68-70, 22 October 2024 and the case-law cited therein in connection with Articles 3 and 13 concerning ongoing conditions of detention) and, as noted above, those courts might not always take cognisance of such complaints pending proceedings.
• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 21325/19

  Y.F.C. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Although it is not always necessary for an Article 5 § 4 procedure to carry the same guarantees as those required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide guarantees appropriate to the type of deprivation of liberty in question (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 203, ECHR 2009 [GC], and J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, § 143, 22 October 2024).
• EGMR - 32485/24 (anhängig)

  JANDRIC v. CROATIA

  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, given the participation of Judge M.S.S. in the decision, was the High Criminal Court impartial (see J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, § 143, 22 October 2024; Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, §§ 265-268, 3 March 2020; and Indra v. Slovakia, no. 46845/99, §§ 48-55, 1 February 2005)?.
• EGMR - 30737/24 (anhängig)

  M.S. v. MALTA

  Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy, for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, providing for an independent and rigorous assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Bangladesh (see F.G. v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611/11, § 113, 23 March 2016; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 293, ECHR 2011; and S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, § 101-02, 20 December 2022)? In particular, can the IPAT and the IAB be considered independent (see, mutatis mutandis, J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, § 155, October 2024)?.