Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EPNERS-GEFNERS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.05.2010 - 37862/02
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02
• EGMR - 37862/02

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  They relied on, most notably, the cases of Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (no. 25498/94, ECHR 2000-X), Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2) (no. 31583/96, 3 April 2003), and Aliev v. Ukraine (no. 41220/98, 29 April 2003) to argue that such a right could not be derived from the Court's case-law.

  However, the Court has stressed that the refusal of such visits may be regarded as justified for the prevention of disorder and crime within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 188, 29 April 2003, and Nazarenko, cited above, § 26).

• EGMR, 01.02.2007 - 76843/01

  NAZARENKO c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  The Government relied on the Court's case-law in cases against Latvia to argue that the circumstances of the present case were different from cases where the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002; Moisejevs, cited above; and Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, 15 June 2006), and were instead comparable to those where no violation was found (see Nazarenko v. Latvia, no. 76843/01, 1 February 2007, and Cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, 8 February 2007).

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents, cited above, § 139; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; and Nazarenko v. Latvia, no. 76843/01, § 25, 1 February 2007).

• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting States could enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V).

• EKMR, 10.07.1991 - 17142/90

  G.S. AND R.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  The Court, like the Commission previously (see X. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 3603/68, Commission decision of 4 February 1970; G.S. and R.S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 17142/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991; and E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997), has noted with approval the reform movements in several European countries to improve prison conditions by facilitating long-term (also called "conjugal") visits.
• EKMR, 04.02.1970 - 3603/68

  X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  The Court, like the Commission previously (see X. v. the Federal Republic of Germany, no. 3603/68, Commission decision of 4 February 1970; G.S. and R.S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 17142/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991; and E.L.H. and P.B.H. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32094/96 and 32568/96, Commission decision of 22 October 1997), has noted with approval the reform movements in several European countries to improve prison conditions by facilitating long-term (also called "conjugal") visits.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  It is true that the Government may be dispensed from the obligation to raise their preliminary objections at the admissibility stage in exceptional circumstances (see, for example, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 126 et seq., ECHR 2004-II), however the Court sees no exceptional circumstances in the present case.
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  The Government relied on the Court's case-law in cases against Latvia to argue that the circumstances of the present case were different from cases where the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002; Moisejevs, cited above; and Kornakovs v. Latvia, no. 61005/00, 15 June 2006), and were instead comparable to those where no violation was found (see Nazarenko v. Latvia, no. 76843/01, 1 February 2007, and Cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, 8 February 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case (see, among many others, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 49, 2 December 2004, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 105, 19 October 2010).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 73819/01

  ESTRIKH v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  However, it is an essential part of a prisoner's right to respect for family life that the authorities enable him or, if need be, assist him in maintaining contact with his close family (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2), no. 25498/94, § 61, ECHR 2000-X; Lavents, cited above, § 139; Estrikh v. Latvia, no. 73819/01, § 166, 18 January 2007; and Nazarenko v. Latvia, no. 76843/01, § 25, 1 February 2007).
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 37862/02

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case (see, among many others, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 49, 2 December 2004, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 105, 19 October 2010).
• EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 67275/01

  CISTIAKOV c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

  MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04

  STOJANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 33798/05

  RUZA v. LATVIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 63748/13

  PSHIBIYEV ET BEROV c. RUSSIE et 4 autres affaires

  Il s'appuie à cet égard sur la jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de droits des détenus (Silver et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 25 mars 1983, série A no 61, Boyle et Rice c. Royaume-Uni, 27 avril 1988, série A no 131, CEDH 2000-VIII, Estrikh c. Lettonie, no 73819/01, 18 janvier 2007, Piechowicz c. Pologne, no 20071/07, 17 avril 2012, et Epners-Gefners c. Lettonie, no 37862/02, 29 mai 2012).