Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ENSSLIN, BAADER and RASPE v. GERMANY

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ENSSLIN, BAADER et RASPE contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 2 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Der Gerichtshof seinerseits legt Wert darauf, seine uneingeschränkte Zustimmung zu der Praxis auszudrücken, die die Kommission in solchen Fällen befolgt hat und die sie auch hier implizit bestätigt hat: wenn ein Bf. im Laufe des Verfahrens stirbt, können seine Erben grundsätzlich in ihrer Eigenschaft als Erben und unter bestimmten Umständen im eigenen Namen geltend machen, dass sie "Opfer" (Art. 25 Abs. 1 der Konvention) der behaupteten Verletzung seien (…vgl. Beschwerde Nr. 4427/70, 24. Mai 1971, X ./. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Recueil de décisions / Collection of Decisions, Nr. 38, S. 39;… Nr. 6166/73, 30. Mai 1975, Baader, Meins, Meinhof und Grundmann gegen Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Décisions et rapports / Decisions and Reports, Nr. 2, S. 66; Nr. 7572/76, 7586/76 und 7587/76, 8. Juli 1978, Ensslin, Baader und Raspe, ibid., Nr. 14, S. 67 und 83).
• EGMR, 18.05.1999 - 28972/95

  NINN-HANSEN c. DANEMARK

  Tel est le cas s'agissant de l'impartialité de la Cour au regard de l'article 6 § 1 (affaire Crociani précitée, p. 181) ou de la présomption d'innocence consacrée par l'article 6 § 2 (Ensslin, Baader et Raspe c. Allemagne, requêtes nos 7572/76, 7586/76 et 7587/76, décision de la Commission du 8 juillet 1978, DR 14, p. 64).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 24407/04

  ONOUFRIOU v. CYPRUS

  In particular, confinement to prevent the risk of disturbance in the prison, to prevent the commission of criminal acts or to protect the prisoner from other inmates had been found not to be a form of inhuman treatment (referring to, inter alia, (see G. Ensslin and Others v. Germany, no. 7572/76, Commission decision of 8 July 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 14, p. 91); (see X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8158/78, Commission decision of 10 July 1980, DR 21, p. 95); Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, §§ 92 to 97, 21 July 2005; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, §§ 120, 123, 129, 132, 136, 145 and 150, ECHR 2006-IX).

 
• EKMR, 07.03.1988 - 11701/85

  E. v. NORWAY

  It has moreover drawn a distinction between this and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons, and would not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).
• EGMR, 14.12.2004 - 45963/99

  ANGUELOV v. BULGARIA

  However, it does not seem that the newspapers' interest in the applicant's trial amounted to a virulent press campaign aimed at hampering the fairness of the trial (see Ensslin, Baader and Raspe v. the Federal Republic of Germany, nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Commission decision of 8 July 1978, DR 14, p. 64, at pp. 112-13).
• EKMR, 16.04.1998 - 28555/95

  TOGHER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  They also specify that the segregation of persons in detention for reasons of security does not, of itself, breach Article 3 (Art. 3) (see, inter alia, Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14, p. 64 and No. 8158/78, Dec. 10.7.80, D.R. 21, p. 95).
• EKMR, 09.07.1991 - 14610/89

  TREHOLT c. NORVEGE

  It has, however, drawn a distinction between this kind of isolation and removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons; it does not normally consider that this form of segregation from the prison community amounts to inhuman treatment or punishment (cf. No. 5310/71, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 25.1.76, p. 379; Nos. 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, dec. 8.7.78, D.R. 14 p. 64 and No. 8317/78 mentioned above).