Weitere Entscheidung unten: EKMR, 21.05.1998

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2001,25098
EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95 (https://dejure.org/2001,25098)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.04.2001 - 28524/95 (https://dejure.org/2001,25098)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. April 2001 - 28524/95 (https://dejure.org/2001,25098)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,25098) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (273)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

    SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
    In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8 § 2, such interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32 § 84, and Petra v. Romania, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, p. 2853, § 36).

    From all the above it follows that the opening of the letters (a) was in accordance with the national law, that is, the Penitentiary Code, Article 51 § 2 [see paragraph 62 of the Court's judgment], (b) was effected for "the prevention of disorder or crime" (that is, smuggling drugs into prison), and (c) was "necessary in a democratic society" in the present case, contrary to the situation in Campbell and other older cases (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1998, Series A no. 131; and McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183).

  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

    CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
    As regards the necessity of the interference, the Court finds no compelling reasons for the monitoring of the relevant correspondence, whose confidentiality it was important to respect (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 22, § 62).

    This case differs from Campbell v. the United Kingdom [judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233] where the Court stated that "there is no compelling reason why such letters should be opened.

  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
    However, the Court notes that, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of violation of Article 3 (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
    From all the above it follows that the opening of the letters (a) was in accordance with the national law, that is, the Penitentiary Code, Article 51 § 2 [see paragraph 62 of the Court's judgment], (b) was effected for "the prevention of disorder or crime" (that is, smuggling drugs into prison), and (c) was "necessary in a democratic society" in the present case, contrary to the situation in Campbell and other older cases (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1998, Series A no. 131; and McCallum v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 183).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

    MURSIC c. CROATIE

    Even the absence of an intention to humiliate or debase a detainee by placing him or her in poor conditions, while being a factor to be taken into account, does not conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III; Mandic and Jovic, cited above, § 80; Iacov Stanciu, cited above, § 179; and generally under Article 3, Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, § 114, and Bouyid, cited above, § 86).
  • BGH, 04.11.2004 - III ZR 361/03

    Zu Entschädigungsansprüchen eines Strafgefangenen wegen menschenunwürdiger …

    Die Beurteilung dieses Mindestmaßes ist abhängig von den Umständen des Einzelfalls, wie beispielsweise der Dauer der Behandlung, ihren physischen oder psychischen Folgen oder von Geschlecht, Alter oder Gesundheitszustand des Opfers (EGMR, Urteil vom 16. Dezember 1997 [Raninen ./. Finnland], ÖIM Newsletter [NL] 1998/1/7; Urteil vom 19. April 2001 [Peers ./. Griechenland], Nr. 28524/95 Slg. 2001 Sec.
  • EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18

    ROTH v. GERMANY

    In considering whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of such a purpose does not conclusively rule out a finding of a violation (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV; Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67, 68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 28524/95   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1998,28011
EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 28524/95 (https://dejure.org/1998,28011)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 21.05.1998 - 28524/95 (https://dejure.org/1998,28011)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Mai 1998 - 28524/95 (https://dejure.org/1998,28011)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1998,28011) 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 (2)

  • EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

    IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 28524/95
    However, the Convention organs have accepted that the requirements of paragraph 3 (c) of Article 6 (Art. 6-3-c) could be relevant in pre-trial proceedings insofar as the fairness of the trial is likely to be prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with them (Eur. court HR, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland judgment of 2 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, para. 36).
  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EKMR, 21.05.1998 - 28524/95
    The applicant did not submit such a request and, as result, did not provide domestic authorities with an opportunity to prevent the violation complained of, as he was in principle required to do under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 19, para. 36).
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