Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JULIN v. ESTONIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment No violation of Article 3 - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08, 18656/10, 40841/08, 8192/10
• EGMR, 09.11.2016 - 16563/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  Thus, treatment has been held by the Court to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering, and also "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  The Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is, the right to institute proceedings before a court in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see, for example, Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-V).

 
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 28249/95

  KREUZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  The Court has held that the amount of fees, assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of a given case, including the applicant's ability to pay them and the phase of the proceedings at which that restriction has been imposed, are factors which are material in determining whether or not a person enjoyed his or her right of access to a court or whether, on account of the amount of fees payable, the very essence of the right of access to a court has been impaired (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-VI, and Georgel and Georgeta Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, § 69, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  It has found that whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).
• EGMR, 15.11.2001 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  It has found that whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

  BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  Furthermore, the Court has in several cases found that a particularly strict construction of procedural rules by the courts deprived applicants of their right of access to a court (see, mutatis mutandis and among others, Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, §§ 51 and 69, ECHR 2002-IX; Efstathiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36998/02, § 33, 27 July 2006; Kemp and Others v. Luxembourg, no. 17140/05, § 59, 24 April 2008; Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece, no. 1234/05, § 28, 15 January 2009; and RTBF v. Belgium, no. 50084/06, § 74, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  It has found that whilst strip searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts); Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 59, 15 November 2001).
• EGMR, 08.06.2006 - 37966/02

  SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  There can be no doubt that Article 6 § 1 applies to a civil claim for compensation in respect of ill-treatment allegedly committed by agents of the State (see, Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 121-22, Series A no. 241-A, and Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 92, Reports 1996-VI) or in respect of the actions of prison authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Skorobogatykh v. Russia (dec.), no. 37966/02, 8 June 2006, and Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 197, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 16563/08

  As regards the Government's argument that the applicant could have sought compensation under the national law, the Court reiterates that an applicant who has already exhausted domestic remedies to no avail before complaining to this Court of a violation of his or her rights is not obliged to do so a second time in order to be able to obtain just satisfaction from the Court (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14, and, more recently, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 36998/02

  EFSTATHIOU ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 12350/04

  WAINWRIGHT c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  ARTYOMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18541/04

  KUZMENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 24.04.2001 - 36337/97

  B. AND P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

  RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE