Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10, 6003/10, 6544/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,57223
EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10, 6003/10, 6544/10 (https://dejure.org/2011,57223)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.10.2011 - 5903/10, 6003/10, 6544/10 (https://dejure.org/2011,57223)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Oktober 2011 - 5903/10, 6003/10, 6544/10 (https://dejure.org/2011,57223)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,57223) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

    Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (54)Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 55, ECHR 2009-..., and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).

    Having regard to the foregoing, in particular to the features of the procedure and the fact that applicants" situation was part of a structural problem in the prison, the Court does not consider that a request for transfer under sections 79 and 81 of the ECS Act could be considered an effective remedy (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI).

  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    The respondent State remains free, subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    This also applies to the applicant Mr Strucl's allegations concerning a lack of an adequate response to his alleged suicidal tendencies, in respect of which the applicant provided no details (see, for example, Visloguzov, cited above, §§ 48-9; Istratii and Others v. Moldova, nos. 8721/05, 8705/05 and 8742/05, § 49, 27 March 2007; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 105 and 110, ECHR 2001-VIII).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

    Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    23536/94 and 24408/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    In the present case, the Court notes that the restrictions on phone calls, written correspondence and the number and duration of visits, which were provided for in the relevant legislation, do not appear to be unreasonable in themselves, given the necessity to uphold the prison regime (see, mutatis mutandis, A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, §§ 92 and 93, 29 January 2002, and Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 74, Series A no. 131).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    However, it must be observed that a lack of resources cannot in principle justify prison conditions which are so poor as to reach the threshold of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Nazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 39483/98, § 144, 29 April 2003) and that it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise its penitentiary system in such a way that ensures respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    The Court points out that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy concerning a complaint of ill-treatment is whether the applicant can raise this complaint before domestic courts in order to obtain direct and timely redress, and not merely an indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 3 of the Convention (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 68, 28 March 2006).
  • EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    While it is not for the Court to give a ruling on an issue of domestic law that is as yet unsettled the absence of any case-law does indicate the uncertainty of these remedies in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 156, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

    HORVAT v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    While it is not for the Court to give a ruling on an issue of domestic law that is as yet unsettled the absence of any case-law does indicate the uncertainty of these remedies in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 156, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts); and De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 39, Series A no. 77).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 14437/05

    MODARCA v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10
    Moreover, while the applicants Mr Strucl and Mr Klansek were for the remaining part of their detention allocated more personal space, during three and two months of that period, respectively, they still stayed in cells where they had no more than 3.25 square metres of personal space, which was further reduced by the furniture in the cells (see Modarca v. Moldova, no. 14437/05, § 63, 10 May 2007.
  • EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01
  • EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 37328/97

    A.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  • EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

    ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 178/02
  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39483/98

    NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

    LEHTINEN contre la FINLANDE

  • EKMR, 14.05.1987 - 11192/84

    MONTION contre la France

  • EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5774/10

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
  • EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 5773/10

    MASELJ v. SLOVENIA

    5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.

    However, at the time when the applicant lodged his application in December 2009 there was no effective domestic remedy available in respect of prison conditions (see Strucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, § 133, 20 October 2011).

  • EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 5998/10

    PETROVIC v. SLOVENIA

    5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.

    However, at the time when the applicant lodged his application in December 2009 there was no effective domestic remedy available in respect of prison conditions (see Strucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, § 133, 20 October 2011).

  • EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 6000/10

    BRLEK v. SLOVENIA

    5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.

    However, at that time no effective domestic remedy was yet available in respect of prison conditions (see Strucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, § 133, 20 October 2011).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht