Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUZA v. LATVIA

  N/A MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 33798/05

  In that regard the Court reiterates that its task is not to rule on legislation in abstracto and it does not therefore express a view as to the general compatibility of the domestic system and practice of health care in prisons with the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 79, Series A no. 61; and, more recently, Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 60, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 33798/05

  Since the Court is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 29, Series A no. 172, Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), it considers that the applicant's complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:.

• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 4605/05

  PETROVA v. LATVIA

  As regards recourse to the MADEKKI, the Court observes that its report was produced for the purposes of the criminal investigation into the applicant's complaints (contrast with Žarskis v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33695/03, § 23, 17 March 2009; Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 19, 11 May 2010; Buks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 18605/03, § 11, 4 September 2012; and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, § 17, 19 November 2013).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

  ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

  Conversely, in some other cases, where the Government did raise such an objection, the Court did not find it necessary to examine their non-exhaustion argument, because the applicants" complaints about medical care in prison were inadmissible on other grounds under Article 35 of the Convention (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 35, 11 May 2010; Buks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 18605/03, § 38, 4 September 2012; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 128, 25 June 2013; and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37543/06, § 46, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 33666/08

  NIKITINA v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates at the outset that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, 11 May 2010).