Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGNATS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 38494/05
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05
• EGMR - 38494/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 17599/05

  NORBERT SIKORSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05

  The Court has already stated that, in principle, applicants who complain about detention conditions after their release from the facility may have to make use of a compensatory remedy at national level in order to meet the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see mutatis mutandis Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009; Lienhardt v. France (dec.), no.12139/10, 13 September 2011; and Rhazali and Others v. France (dec.), no. 37568/09, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05

  The relevant parts of the Administrative Procedure Law (Administrativa procesa likums), which took effect on 1 February 2004, have been summarised in Melnitis v. Latvia (no. 30779/05, §§ 24-26, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05

  In this connection, the Government referred to the information provided by the Supreme Court of Latvia for the purposes of another case pending at that time before the Court, noting that in 2007 the Administrative District Court had examined on the merits some ten cases about the actions of public authorities in prisons (see, for the same argument, the Government's submissions in Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, §§ 88-89, 27 November 2012).

• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 12139/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05

  The Court has already stated that, in principle, applicants who complain about detention conditions after their release from the facility may have to make use of a compensatory remedy at national level in order to meet the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (see mutatis mutandis Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, § 116, 22 October 2009; Lienhardt v. France (dec.), no.12139/10, 13 September 2011; and Rhazali and Others v. France (dec.), no. 37568/09, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05

  In particular, the Government mentioned one specific example of a case (no. A42510707) concerning the conditions in the temporary detention facility in Ventspils during various periods between 17 September 2004 and April 2005 (see, for the same reference to domestic case-law, the Government's submissions in Timofejevi v. Latvia, no. 45393/04, § 69, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 11.09.2012 - 1710/06

  KATAJEVS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 38494/05

  While the Court has found that recourse to the administrative courts was not a remedy accessible in practice to detainees, at least before 15 June 2006 (see Melnitis, cited above, §§ 46-53, 28 February 2012; Katajevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 1710/06, § 19, 11 September 2012; and Timofejevi, cited above, §§ 71-73), it cannot do so in the present case for the following reasons.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen