Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TKACIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e, Art. 8, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 42472/98

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TKACIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 17, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7... Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 42472/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98

  Even assuming that domestic remedies were exhausted, the Court finds, on the basis of the documents before it, that the treatment complained of by the applicant did not attain a degree of gravity sufficient to conclude that his right under Article 3 was thereby infringed (see, mutatis mutandis, the Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, §§ 27 and 28, with further reference).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98

  b) As to the alleged lack of remedies in respect of the remaining complaints, the Court recalls that Article 13 only requires a remedy in domestic law in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in the terms of the Convention (see, for example, the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 33).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27748/95

  ZDEBSKI, ZDEBSKA AND ZDEBSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98

  Such a remedy cannot, therefore, be considered as effective for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, no. 12747/87, Commission decision of 12 December 1989, Decisions and Reports (DR) 64, p. 97 and the Court's judgment in the same case of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, § 103 as well as Zdebski and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 27748/95, 6 April 2000).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47804/99

  HAVALA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98

  The Court found earlier that the above remedy is not effective and need not be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as, in particular, the relevant domestic practice indicates that it does cover claims for compensation for damage of non-pecuniary nature (see Havala v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47804/99, 13 September 2001).
• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 51837/00

  BELLER v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 42472/98

  a) The Court recalls that the remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of the complaint (see Beller v. Poland (dec.), no. 51837/00, 23 October 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen