Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 17.10.1994

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,32362
EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92 (https://dejure.org/2000,32362)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.07.2000 - 20869/92 (https://dejure.org/2000,32362)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Juli 2000 - 20869/92 (https://dejure.org/2000,32362)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,32362) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIKME c. TURQUIE

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
    Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes délai de six mois) Non-violation de l'Art. 5-2 Violation de l'Art. 5-3 Violation de l'Art. 3 en raison des mauvais traitements Violation de l'Art. 3 en raison de l'absence d'une ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DIKME v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objections rejected (non exhaustion of domestic remedies six month period) No violation of Art. 5-2 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 3 in respect of ill-treatment Violation of Art. 3 in respect of ineffective investigation No violation of Art. ...

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 ... (169)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

    MARCKX v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    The Commission, referring in particular to the Artico judgment cited above and the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979 (Series A no. 31), pointed out that the existence of a violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) was conceivable even if the accused had not suffered any actual damage.
  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

    IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    In this connection, it reiterates its finding in the Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 24 November 1993 (Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36) and the John Murray judgment cited above (p. 54, § 62) that Article 6 applies even at the stage of a preliminary investigation by the police and that paragraph 3 is one element, amongst others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings as set forth in paragraph 1 and may, for example, be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions.
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    The Court reiterates that when assessing the obligations imposed on Contracting States by Article 8 in relation to prison visits, regard must be had to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and to the resultant degree of discretion which the national authorities must be allowed in regulating a prisoner's contact with his family (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 29, § 74; see also the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 38, § 98, and, mutatis mutandis, the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 21-22, § 45, and the Schönenberger and Durmaz v. Switzerland judgment of 20 June 1988, Series A no.137, p. 13, § 25).
     
  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

    GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    The Court reiterates that when assessing the obligations imposed on Contracting States by Article 8 in relation to prison visits, regard must be had to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and to the resultant degree of discretion which the national authorities must be allowed in regulating a prisoner's contact with his family (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 29, § 74; see also the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 38, § 98, and, mutatis mutandis, the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 21-22, § 45, and the Schönenberger and Durmaz v. Switzerland judgment of 20 June 1988, Series A no.137, p. 13, § 25).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    The Court reiterates that when assessing the obligations imposed on Contracting States by Article 8 in relation to prison visits, regard must be had to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment and to the resultant degree of discretion which the national authorities must be allowed in regulating a prisoner's contact with his family (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 29, § 74; see also the Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 38, § 98, and, mutatis mutandis, the Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 21-22, § 45, and the Schönenberger and Durmaz v. Switzerland judgment of 20 June 1988, Series A no.137, p. 13, § 25).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    They also argued that, in contrast to the situation in Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, § 24, ECHR 1999-V), Mr Dikme's allegations were too inconsistent and imprecise for a causal link to be established with the medical findings on which his submissions relied.
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    To establish the facts, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt"; such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences (see, as the most recent authority, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    Whether it is appropriate or necessary to find a procedural breach of Article 3 will therefore depend on the circumstances of the particular case" ([GC], no. 22277/93, § 92, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1989 - 11152/84

    CIULLA v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    The Court notes at the outset that it has jurisdiction to take cognisance of preliminary pleas of this kind if and in so far as the respondent State has already raised them before the Commission to the extent that their nature and the circumstances permitted; if that condition is not satisfied, the Government are estopped from raising the matter before the Court (see, among many other authorities, the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 29-31, §§ 47-55, and the Ciulla v. Italy judgment of 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148, p. 14, § 28).
  • EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

    ARTICO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
    Admittedly, the reason prompting an objection to admissibility sometimes comes to light after the decision accepting the application: for example, a reversal of domestic case-law may disclose the existence of a hitherto unknown remedy or an applicant may formulate a new complaint whose admissibility the Government have not yet had the opportunity of contesting (see, among other authorities, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 13-14, § 27).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

    A ET B c. NORVÈGE

    It is true that the Court has repeatedly noted the special social stigma implied by the offence of torture (see, among many other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 167, Series A no. 25; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-VI; Aydin v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos.
  • EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 39630/09

    El Masri klagt gegen Mazedonien

    La Cour relève que ces traitements ont été infligés à l'intéressé intentionnellement, afin de lui extorquer des aveux ou des renseignements sur ses liens présumés avec des organisations terroristes (Dikme c. Turquie, no 20869/92, §§ 82 et 95, CEDH 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-...; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).

    Admittedly, in recent years the concept of "torture" has been interpreted in an evolutive manner and acts previously classified as inhuman and degrading treatment are now in some cases described as torture (see Selmouni, cited above, §§ 101 and 105; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII).

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

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 17.10.1994 - 20869/92   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1994,27497
EKMR, 17.10.1994 - 20869/92 (https://dejure.org/1994,27497)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 17.10.1994 - 20869/92 (https://dejure.org/1994,27497)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Oktober 1994 - 20869/92 (https://dejure.org/1994,27497)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,27497) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

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