Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 16.09.2004

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,63378
EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,63378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.06.2007 - 30138/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,63378)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Juni 2007 - 30138/02 (https://dejure.org/2007,63378)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,63378) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6 Hindrance to the applicant's right of individual petition Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

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 ... (57)Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

    Eckle ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    The Court reiterates that a criminal charge is "determined" when the conviction has become final and the sentence has been definitively fixed (see, among other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25; Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 77; and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 108, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    The Court reiterates that a criminal charge is "determined" when the conviction has become final and the sentence has been definitively fixed (see, among other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25; Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 77; and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 108, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    The Court reiterates that a criminal charge is "determined" when the conviction has become final and the sentence has been definitively fixed (see, among other authorities, Delcourt v. Belgium, judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, § 25; Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 77; and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 108, 16 December 1999).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 50178/99

    NIKITINE c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    Only the new proceedings, after the re-opening has been granted, can be regarded as concerning the determination of a criminal charge (see Nikitin v. Russia, no. 50178/99, § 60, ECHR 2004-VIII, with further references).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references).
  • EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01

    Gesetzlicher Richter gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; Besetzung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

    McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02
    The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references).
  • EGMR, 12.07.2007 - 20877/04

    TESTA v. CROATIA

    By contrast, in some other cases no violation of Article 3 was found, as the restricted space in the sleeping facilities was compensated for by the freedom of movement enjoyed by the detainees during the day time (see Valasinas, cited above, §§ 103, 107, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10

    [ENG]

    In a number of cases the Court has found that the freedom of movement allowed to inmates in a colony and unobstructed access to natural light and air have served as sufficient compensation for the scarce allocation of space per convict (see, among others, Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 103 and 107, 24 July 2001; Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004; Shkurenko v. Russia (dec.), no. 15010/04, 10 September 2009; and Orlov, cited above, § 77).
  • EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02

    POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA

    As regards the complaints about the temporary detention centre and remand prison of Cheboksary, the first applicant's detention in these facilities ended on 18 December 2000 and 24 January 2002 respectively, which is more than six months prior to the date of introduction of the complaint (see, for example, Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).

    m. of personal space and did not allege that he had no individual bed (see Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 30138/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,48795
EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 30138/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,48795)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.09.2004 - 30138/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,48795)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. September 2004 - 30138/02 (https://dejure.org/2004,48795)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,48795) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 2, Art. 8 MRK
    Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

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)Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 30138/02
    As regards allocation of space, the Court concludes that the freedom of movement allowed and unobstructed access to natural light and air compensate for the relatively small dimensions of the applicant's room and the scarce space allocation per convict (cf. Valašinas v. Lithuania, cited above, §§ 103 and 107; see, by way of contrast, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 30138/02
    However, it is incumbent on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 101-102, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

    PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.09.2004 - 30138/02
    (b) The Court further notes that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht