Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 21.09.2016

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68233
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68233)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.07.2009 - 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68233)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Juli 2009 - 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68233)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68233) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GRORI v. ALBANIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

 
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 ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).

    The Court reiterates that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies referred to in Article 35 of the Convention obliges those seeking to bring their case against the State before the Court to use first the remedies provided by the national legal system (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    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, no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

    All persons are entitled to the protection of that right, that is to say, not to be deprived, or to continue to be deprived, of their liberty (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 22, § 40), save in accordance with the conditions specified in paragraph 1 of Article 5. The list of exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV, and Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 17, § 42) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, p. 25, § 58, and Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 848, § 42).

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

    MAESTRI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Mentes and Others v. Turkey (Article 50), judgment of 24 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1695, § 24; and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Mentes and Others v. Turkey (Article 50), judgment of 24 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1695, § 24; and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

    Transnistrien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols 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 its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Mentes and Others v. Turkey (Article 50), judgment of 24 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1695, § 24; and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

    CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    The obligation in Article 34 not to interfere with an individual's effective exercise of the right to submit and pursue a complaint before the Court confers upon an applicant a right of a procedural nature - which can be asserted in Convention proceedings - distinguishable from the substantive rights set out under Section I of the Convention or its Protocols (see, for instance, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 470, ECHR 2005-III).
  • EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

    OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04
    It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

    KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

    BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 64666/01

    PAPON v. FRANCE (No. 1)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

    MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

    FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

    HURTADO c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

    BOZANO v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

    WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

    QUINN c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07

    V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

    Il y a lieu de prendre en compte le but du traitement infligé et, en particulier, de considérer s'il y a eu volonté d'humilier ou d'abaisser l'individu, mais l'absence d'une telle intention ne saurait forcément conduire à un constat de non-violation de l'article 3 (Peers c. Grèce, no 28524/95, §§ 68 et 74, CEDH 2001-III, et Grori c. Albanie, no 25336/04, § 125, 7 juillet 2009, et autres références citées).
  • EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15

    M.A. c. FRANCE

    [45] Grori c. Albanie (no 25336/04, § 186, 7 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 34602/16

    STRAZIMIRI v. ALBANIA

    At the same time, it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospect of success (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 108, 7 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

    ZOKHIDOV v. RUSSIA

    It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 184, 7 July 2009, and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 161, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 31.03.2022 - 49775/20

    N.B. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Les principes généraux concernant le respect d'une mesure provisoire prise par la Cour au titre de l'article 39 de son Règlement, et en particulier le délai laissé au Gouvernement pour s'y conformer, ont été présentés dans Grori c. Albanie (no 25336/04, §§ 181-195, 7 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 10060/07

    BATALINY v. RUSSIA

    Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Grori v. Albania, § 125, no. 25336/04, with further references).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11

    VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 5614/05

    DEMIAN c. ROUMANIE

    L'État doit veiller à assurer de manière adéquate la santé et le bien-être des prisonniers, notamment par l'administration des soins médicaux appropriés (voir, parmi de nombreux autres, Matencio c. France, no 58749/00, 15 janvier 2004 ; Sakkopoulos c. Grèce, no 61828/00, 15 janvier 2004 ; Gennadiy Naumenko c. Ukraine, no 42023/98, 10 février 2004 ; Poghossian c. Géorgie, no 9870/07, 24 février 2009 ; Grori c. Albanie, no 25336/04, 7 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36435/07

    RAFFRAY TADDEI c. FRANCE

    La Cour renvoie aux principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article à l'obligation positive de l'Etat de s'assurer que tout prisonnier est détenu dans des conditions compatibles avec le respect de la dignité humaine, que les modalités d'exécution de la mesure ne soumettent pas l'intéressé à une détresse ou une épreuve d'une intensité qui excède le niveau inévitable de souffrance inhérent à la détention et que, eu égard aux exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement, la santé et le bien-être du prisonnier sont assurés de manière adéquate, notamment par l'administration des soins médicaux requis (voir, parmi de nombreux autres, Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, CEDH 2000-XI ; Ä°lhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, CEDH 2000-VII ; CEDH 2000-XI ; Mouise, précité ; Matencio c. France, no 58749/00, 15 janvier 2004 ; Sakkopoulos c. Grèce, no 61828/00, 15 janvier 2004 ; Gennadiy Naumenko c. Ukraine, no 42023/98, 10 février 2004 ; Poghossian c. Géorgie, no 9870/07, 24 février 2009 ; Grori c. Albanie, no 25336/04, 7 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2021 - 45022/16

    ZAHARIA v. ALBANIA

    In this connection, the Court has examined prior cases concerning inadequate medical treatment provided to prisoners or detained persons and poor conditions of detention (see for example Kud?‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Dybeku v. Albania, no. 41153/06, § 38, 18 December 2007; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 127, 7 July 2009; Cara-Damiani v. Italy, no. 2447/05, § 66, 7 February 2012; and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 136, 23 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 33526/08

    D.B. v. TURKEY

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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 41153/06, 25336/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,31085
EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 41153/06, 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2016,31085)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.09.2016 - 41153/06, 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2016,31085)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. September 2016 - 41153/06, 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2016,31085)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,31085) 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

    CASES OF DYBEKU AND GRORI AGAINST ALBANIA

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AFFAIRES DYBEKU ET GRORI CONTRE L'ALBANIE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

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