Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUSAEV v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on charge Information on reasons for arrest) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Musaev v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MUSAEV v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  The Court reiterates that, in contrast to an objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a government has not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  When assessing conditions of detention, account must be taken of the cumulative effects of these conditions, as well as of specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  The Court further reiterates that the lack of adequate personal space in the detention area weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether or not the impugned detention conditions were "degrading" from the point of view of Article 3 (see Karalevicius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 36, 7 April 2005, and, for a detailed analysis of the principles concerning the overcrowding issue, see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 143-148).

 
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  It considers that this fact in itself had the effect of depriving the applicant's right of appeal against his detention under Article 5 § 4 of all substance (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 432, ECHR 2005-III; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 141; and Dbouba, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 12535/04

  ARTIMENCO c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudla, cited above, §§ 90-94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97 et. seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Artimenco v. Romania, no. 12535/04, §§ 31-33, 30 June 2009).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention as in the present case (see below paragraphs 58-61) and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 28.02.2019 - 19951/16

  Herabsetzende Behandlung junger Flüchtlinge: Griechenland verurteilt

  La Cour rappelle que, dans des affaires où des détenus n'avaient pas été informés des raisons justifiant leur privation de liberté, elle a jugé que le droit des intéressés d'introduire un recours contre la détention litigieuse s'était trouvé vidé de son contenu (voir, notamment, Khlaifia et autres c. Italie [GC], no 16483/12, § 132, 15 décembre 2016, Musaev c. Turquie, no 72754/11, § 40, 21 octobre 2014, Dbouba c. Turquie, no 15916/09, § 54, 13 juillet 2010, Abdolkhani et Karimnia c. Turquie, no 0471/08, § 141, 22 septembre 2009, et Chamaïev et autres, précité, § 432).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05

  MOROZOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that, in contrast with an objection on the basis of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be raised by the respondent Government, it is not open to it to dispense with the application of the six-month rule solely because the respondent Government have not made an objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III; Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 71; Fetisov and Others v. Russia, nos. 43710/07, 6023/08, 11248/08, 27668/08, 31242/08 and 52133/08, § 72, 17 January 2012; and Musaev v. Turkey, no. 72754/11, § 46, 21 October 2014).