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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Strucl and others v. Slovenia

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• 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, 08.07.1999 - 23536/94

  Strafrechtliche Verfolgung auf Grund der Veröffentlichung eines Buches mit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  With regard to an applicant's Convention costs, the Court reiterates that it does not consider itself bound by domestic scales and practices, although it may derive some assistance from them (see, among many other authorities, Gaspari v. Slovenia, no. 21055/03, § 83, 21 July 2009, and Baskaya and OkçuoÄ?lu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 23536/94 and 24408/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• 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, 14.10.1999 - 39076/97

  LEHTINEN contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  Likewise, a petition to the Human Rights Ombudsman can only lead to recommendations and has not been considered by the Court to constitute an effective remedy (see, Lehtinen v. Finland (dec.), no. 39076/97, ECHR 1999-VII, and Montion v. France, no. 11192/84, Commission decision of 14 May 1987, Decisions and Reports 52, p. 232).
• 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, 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, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  The distribution of the burden of proof is intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 27.03.2007 - 8721/05

  ISTRATII v. MOLDOVA

  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, 11.06.2009 - 178/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  However, the remedy required by Article 13 must be effective in law as well as in practice (Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 74, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 77568/01

  PETKOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  However, the remedy required by Article 13 must be effective in law as well as in practice (Petkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 77568/01, 178/02 and 505/02, § 74, ECHR 2009-...).
• EKMR, 14.05.1987 - 11192/84

  MONTION contre la France
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  SALAKHOV AND ISLYAMOVA v. UKRAINE

  5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, § 65, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 74279/10

  LICA c. GRÈCE

  Se prévalant de l'arrêt Struckl et autres c. Slovénie (no 5903/10, 6003/10, 6544/10, § 67, 22 octobre 2011), le Gouvernement prétend que des allégations relatives à des conditions de détention qui se présentent sous forme de considérations générales, sans rapport avec les faits de l'espèce, ne suffisent pas pour fonder une violation de l'article 3. Les renvois partiels du requérant au rapport établi par le CPT à la suite de sa visite à la Direction de la police de Patras en 2009 ne sauraient constituer par eux-mêmes des preuves quant aux conditions de détention du requérant du 19 avril au 3 mai 2010.
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 51653/12

  BOUROS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Les requérants ne fournissent aucun détail concernant leur état de santé ou des problèmes médicaux les affectant personnellement et ne font pas état de manière précise d'un manque de diligence dont les autorités auraient fait preuve à leur égard (voir, mutatis mutandis, Strucl et autres c. Slovénie, no 5903/10, 6003/10 et 6544/10, § 67, 20 octobre 2011).

 
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 78682/14

  CHANIOTIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Par ailleurs, elle note que les intéressés ne fournissent aucun détail concernant leur état de santé ou les problèmes médicaux qui pourraient les affecter personnellement et qu'ils ne font pas non plus état de manière précise et documentée d'un manque de diligence dont les autorités auraient fait preuve à leur égard (Strucl et autres c. Slovénie, nos 5903/10, 6003/10 et 6544/10, § 67, 20 octobre 2011, et Valeriy Samoylov c. Russie, no 57541/09, § 80, 24 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 28403/05

  VINTMAN v. UKRAINE

  5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, § 65, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33352/15

  ARFAN ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Par ailleurs, elle note que les intéressés ne fournissent aucun détail concernant leur état de santé ou les problèmes médicaux qui pourraient les affecter personnellement et qu'ils ne font pas non plus état de manière précise et documentée d'un manque de diligence dont les autorités auraient fait preuve à leur égard (Strucl et autres c. Slovénie, nos 5903/10 et 2 autres, § 67, 20 octobre 2011, et Valeriy Samoïlov c. Russie, no 57541/09, § 80, 24 janvier 2012).
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 6687/10

  FAGANEL v. SLOVENIA

  In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and in particular the fact that the law firm representing the applicant has already been reimbursed in other cases for preparation of submissions almost identical to the present one (see Mandic and Jovic, cited above, §§ 133-35, Strucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 146-48, 20 October 2011 and Praznik v. Slovenia, no. 6234/10, §§ 38-40, 28 June 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 to cover the costs of the proceedings before the Court.
• EGMR, 06.11.2014 - 29998/10

  PUZIN v. SLOVENIA

  In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and in particular the fact that the law firm representing the applicant has already been reimbursed in other cases for preparation of submissions almost identical to the present ones (see Mandic and Jovic, cited above, §§ 133-35, Strucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 146-48, 20 October 2011 and Praznik v. Slovenia, no. 6234/10, §§ 38-40, 28 June 2012), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 500 to cover the costs of the proceedings before the Court.