Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 11.04.2006 | EGMR, 21.09.2004

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,33568
EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,33568)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.03.2009 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,33568)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. März 2009 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2009,33568)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,33568) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (63)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • BVerfG, 21.06.1977 - 1 BvL 14/76

    Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    German Constitutional Court, 21 June 1977, BVerfGE 45, 187; EuGRZ 1977, 267.
  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

    DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    It also notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    "[t]he Court has repeatedly stated that its 'judgments in fact serve not only to decide those cases brought before the Court but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties' (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, p. 62, § 154, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 31, § 86).
     
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    It also notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

    EINHORN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    It also notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

    X c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    It also notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings (see Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, §§ 37-38, Series A no. 35; X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, § 32, Series A no. 46; Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991, § 2, Series A no. 206-C; G. v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 228-F; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 2, Series A no. 231-B; X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; and Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281-A), or the existence of a legitimate interest claimed by a person wishing to pursue the application (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

    SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    Kafkaris, cited above, § 97; see also Nivette c. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Partington v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 58853/00, 26 June 2003; Stanford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 73299/01, 12 December 2002; and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67385/01, 22 May 2003.
  • EGMR, 25.03.1994 - 17116/90

    SCHERER v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 2476/02

    THÉVENON c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02
    On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15; and Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

    NIVETTE contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 73299/01

    STANFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

    ÖHLINGER v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 26.06.2003 - 58853/00

    PARTINGTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    It points out that the practice of the Court is to strike applications out of the list when an applicant dies during the course of the proceedings and no heir or close relative wishes to pursue the case (see, among other authorities, Scherer v. Switzerland, 25 March 1994, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 287; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission Report of 14 January 1997, § 15; Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

    KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

    The Court has thus been frequently led, under Articles 37 and 38, to verify that the general problem raised by the case had been or was being remedied and that similar legal issues had been resolved by the Court in other cases (see, among many others, Can v. Austria, 30 September 1985, §§ 15-18, Series A no. 96, and Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 51, ECHR 2009-...).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

    Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    The Government relied on the Court's rulings in Kafkaris and Léger v. France, no. 19324/02, ECHR 2006-..., and the United Kingdom court's rulings in Wellington and Bieber (see paragraphs 64-72 and 144 above).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,39266
EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,39266)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.04.2006 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,39266)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. April 2006 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,39266)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,39266) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    The applicant submitted that the Court's findings in the cases of Stafford v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 46295/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-IV), Weeks v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114-A) and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 294-A), concerning mandatory and discretionary life sentences in the United Kingdom, were perfectly applicable to the system employed in France.

    In other words, a person who was detained lawfully can, as circumstances change over time, become a person whose continued detention is unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to a person of unsound mind, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50; see also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, the Grand Chamber's judgment in Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

    The dangerousness element is by its very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 24-25, § 46).

  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

    STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    The applicant submitted that the Court's findings in the cases of Stafford v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 46295/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-IV), Weeks v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114-A) and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 294-A), concerning mandatory and discretionary life sentences in the United Kingdom, were perfectly applicable to the system employed in France.

    In other words, a person who was detained lawfully can, as circumstances change over time, become a person whose continued detention is unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to a person of unsound mind, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50; see also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, the Grand Chamber's judgment in Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

    In particular, where Article 5 is concerned, the entire period during which the review of sentences was "non-judicial" escapes the Court's scrutiny, as does the question of the power vested in the Minister of Justice (who formerly had responsibility for decisions on parole), which is known to raise an issue under the Convention (see Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV) and which by its very nature excludes a number of procedural safeguards to which a convicted person should be entitled.

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    Lastly, as to whether the procedure prescribed by domestic law had been observed in the applicant's case (they cited Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46), the Government pointed out that the Court incorporated national legislation into all the requirements to be satisfied under Article 5, making compliance with domestic law a precondition for compliance with the Convention.

    Looking beyond appearances, the Court has always held that the "lawfulness" required by the Convention presupposes not only conformity with domestic law but also, as confirmed by Article 18, conformity with the purposes of the deprivation of liberty permitted by Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39, and Stafford, cited above, § 64); it is required in respect of both the ordering and the execution of the measures involving deprivation of liberty.

     
  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    More specifically, in the case of lengthy sentences and decisions to re-detain or not to release prisoners, the causal link between such decisions and the initial judgment might eventually be broken "if a position were reached in which those decisions were based on grounds that had no connection with the objectives of the legislature and the court or on an assessment that was unreasonable in terms of those objectives" (they cited Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 21-22, § 40, and Weeks, cited above, p. 26, § 49).

    In other words, a person who was detained lawfully can, as circumstances change over time, become a person whose continued detention is unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to a person of unsound mind, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50; see also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, the Grand Chamber's judgment in Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    It has pointed out that it does not pronounce on "the appropriate length of detention or other sentence which should be served by a person after conviction by a competent court" (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

    The Court's case-law is suspicious about the exercise of such power by a member of the executive (see the Grand Chamber's judgments of 16 December 1999 in T. and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 24724/94 and 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    It has pointed out that it does not pronounce on "the appropriate length of detention or other sentence which should be served by a person after conviction by a competent court" (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

    The Court's case-law is suspicious about the exercise of such power by a member of the executive (see the Grand Chamber's judgments of 16 December 1999 in T. and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 24724/94 and 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    A never-ending detention of this kind is comparable to a slow death sentence or to death row with no exit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161).
  • EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

    Neumeister ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    Secondly, the reasons given by the courts can easily become stereotyped or irrelevant and must therefore be reviewed, as in the case of continued pre-trial detention (see, for an early example, Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, and the subsequent settled case-law).
  • EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

    MOUISEL v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    The Court often repeats with regard to prisoners that their suffering must not go beyond that inevitably associated with legitimate expectations of a prison sentence (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
    They pointed out that in order for a punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved had to attain a particular level and in any event had to be other than the usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment (they cited Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 37, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

    EINHORN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

    NIVETTE contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 26.06.2003 - 58853/00

    PARTINGTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,35682
EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,35682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.09.2004 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,35682)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. September 2004 - 19324/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,35682)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,35682) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Le Gouvernement rappelle la jurisprudence de la Cour relative à la peine, et en particulier celle énonçant que pour qu'une peine soit dégradante et enfreigne l'article 3, 1'humiliation ou l'avilissement dont elle s'accompagne doivent se situer à un niveau particulier et diffère en tout cas de l'élément habituel et inévitable d'humiliation d'une peine (arrêt Tyrer c. Royaume-Uni du 25 avril 1978, série A no 26).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Le Gouvernement rappelle la jurisprudence de la Cour sur la notion de torture et l'infliction intentionnelle d'une douleur ou de souffrances aigues aux fins d'obtenir notamment des renseignements, de punir ou d'intimider (arrêt Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, CEDH 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

    EINHORN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Il se réfère à la jurisprudence Einhorn v. France ((dec.), no 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI) et déduit de la citation « l'accès d'une personne condamnée à la réclusion criminelle à perpétuité (...) au bénéfice de la libération conditionnelle est restreint.
     
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    A propos des peines perpétuelles, le Gouvernement cite l'arrêt Hussain c. Royaume-Uni du 21 février 1996 (Recueil 1996-I) dans lequel la Cour a considéré que d'être privé de sa liberté pour l'existence pour un jeune sans tenir compte des modifications qui interviennent avec la maturité pourrait poser problème au regard de l'article 3. Il se réfère également à l'arrêt V. c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], no 24888/94, CEDH 1999-IX): « l'élément de rétribution inhérent au principe de la période punitive n'emporte pas en soi violation de l'article 3 (...) la Convention n'interdit pas aux Etats d'infliger à un enfant ou à un adolescent convaincu d'une infraction grave une peine de durée indéterminée permettant de maintenir le délinquant en détention ou de le réintégrer en prison à la suite de sa libération lorsque la protection du public l'exige » (§ 98).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

    STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Dans cette perspective, la Cour s'attache à «la nature et au but de la peine» infligée à l'occasion de la condamnation initiale invoquée comme fondement de la détention (arrêt Stafford c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 46295/99, § 66 CEDH 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

    NIVETTE contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Dans les décisions Einhorn précitée et Nivette c. France (déc.), no 44190/98, CEDH 2001-VII), la Cour a conclu qu'il n'était pas permis de déduire qu'en cas de condamnation à vie à l'issue d'un procès aux Etats-Unis, les requérants se trouveraient dans l'impossibilité de bénéficier d'une mesure de libération conditionnelle.
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    e) Sur le bien-fondé des griefs, et à la lumière notamment des arrêts Kudla c. Pologne ([GC], no 30210/96, CEDH 2000-XI) et Mouisel c. France (no 67263/01, § 37, 14 novembre 2002), le Gouvernement soutient que les faits allégués ne constituent ni une torture ni des traitements inhumains ou dégradants au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention.
  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Le Gouvernement soutient que la sanction infligée par la cour d'assises en 1966, bien que n'entrant pas dans le champ de compétence ratione temporis de la Cour, remplit les critères d'une «condamnation» au sens de la jurisprudence de la Cour (arrêt Guzzardi c. Italie du 6 novembre 1980, série A no 39, § 100).
  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    Sous cet angle, il rappelle qu'il y a un certain chevauchement entre la «régularité» et l'exigence du respect des «voies légales» (arrêt Winterwep c. Pays-Bas du 24 octobre 1979, série A no 33, § 39).
  • EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

    BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
    C'est ainsi que la Cour a été amenée à se prononcer sur la problématique des soins médicaux au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention (Bensaid c. Royaume-Uni, no 44599/98, CEDH 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 67263/01

    AFFAIRES MOUISEL ET HENAF CONTRE LA FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 37119/97

    N.F. c. ITALIE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht