Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CACKO v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 49905/08

  It must examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust domestic remedies (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 116, ECHR 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 130/10

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 49905/08

  66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, §§ 102-122, ECHR 2013 (extracts), with further references.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 57592/08

  HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In two cases, the Court found that due to the existence of a judicial procedure of sentence review the domestic law was in keeping with Article 3 of the Convention (see Čačko v. Slovakia, no. 49905/08, 22 July 2014, and Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014).

  Čačko v. Slovakia, no. 49905/08, § 43, 22 July 2014.

• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 28157/18

  F.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The incompatibility with Article 3 of the Convention will cease if provision is made for the possibility of review of a life sentence... (cf. also [Čačko v. Slovakia, no. 49905/08, 22 July 2014]).

  Noting further that the above-mentioned dates and calculation methods were not disputed by the applicants (compare and contrast, Petukhov (no. 2), cited above, §§ 175-76), the Court has no grounds to conclude that the applicable time frame as set out in the Advisory Board Decree is incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Čačko v. Slovakia, no. 49905/08, § 77, 22 July 2014; compare and contrast T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary, nos. 37871/14 and 73986/14, § 45, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 22662/13

  MATIOSAITIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA and 7 other applications

  To highlight just a few: Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2) (nos. 24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, 18 March 2014); László Magyar v. Hungary (no. 73593/10, 20 May 2014); Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria (nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); Čačko v. Slovakia (no. 49905/08, 22 July 2014); Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)); Murray (cited above); T.P. and A.T. v. Hungary (cited above); and, finally, Hutchinson (cited above).
• EGMR, 28.04.2026 - 48721/22

  ANTONOV v. ESTONIA

  Rn. 64 In the case of Čačko v. Slovakia (no. 49905/08, §§ 77-81, 22 July 2014) the Court, finding no violation of Article 3 of the Convention, observed that a judicial review mechanism rendering possible the early release (after 25 years) of whole life prisoners was introduced in January 2010 - that is to say a relatively short time after the applicant's conviction and the lodging of his application with the Court in October 2008.
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 27683/13

  KOKY v. SLOVAKIA

  In particular, the Court has already found in its judgment in the case of Čačko v. Slovakia (no. 49905/08, §§ 77 and 78, 22 July 2014) that since 1 January 2010 both national law (Article 67 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and practice afforded the possibility of a dedicated judicial review of life sentences imposed in situations such as those of Mr Čačko and that this review mechanism satisfied the criteria set out in Vinter and Others (cited above, §§ 119-122).