Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 04.12.2014

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01, 8067/12, 7334/13, 21613/16   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,32816
EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 73786/01, 8067/12, 7334/13, 21613/16 (https://dejure.org/2020,32816)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.10.2020 - 73786/01, 8067/12, 7334/13, 21613/16 (https://dejure.org/2020,32816)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Oktober 2020 - 73786/01, 8067/12, 7334/13, 21613/16 (https://dejure.org/2020,32816)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,32816) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENBAUER CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    CENBAUER AGAINST CROATIA AND 3 OTHER CASES

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (288)

  • EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 4412/18

    FAROOQ ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

    La Cour renvoie aux principes énoncés dans sa jurisprudence relative aux mauvaises conditions de détention (voir, par exemple, Mursic c. Croatie [GC], no 7334/13, §§ 96-101, CEDH 2016).

    Dans l'arrêt de principe Mursic c. Croatie [GC], no 7334/13, 20 octobre 2016, 1a Cour a conclu à la violation au sujet de questions similaires à celles qui font l'objet de la présente affaire.

    Eu égard aux documents en sa possession et à sa jurisprudence (voir Mursic c. Croatie [GC], no 7334/13, 20 octobre 2016), la Cour estime raisonnable d'allouer les sommes indiquées dans le tableau joint en annexe.

  • EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 32439/19

    LEROY c. FRANCE

    En ce qui concerne les conditions de détention, les principes ont été rappelés par la Cour dans l'arrêt Mur?.ic c. Croatie ([GC], no 7334/13, 20 octobre 2016):.
  • EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 20550/18

    ZAGREANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

    The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur?.ic v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,37938
EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12 (https://dejure.org/2014,37938)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.12.2014 - 8067/12 (https://dejure.org/2014,37938)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Dezember 2014 - 8067/12 (https://dejure.org/2014,37938)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,37938) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LONIC v. CROATIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
    Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Degrading treatment) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 12631/87

    FEJDE c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    Thus the Supreme Court was called upon to make a full assessment of the applicant's guilt or innocence regarding the charges against him in view of not only the arguments he had adduced before the first-instance court but also the arguments concerning the alleged failures of that court to establish all the relevant facts and to apply the relevant substantive and procedural rules correctly (compare Abdulgadirov, cited above, § 42, and Kozlitin v. Russia, no. 17092/04, § 63, 14 November 2013; and contrast Fejde v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, § 33, Series A no. 212-C, and Hermi, cited above, § 85).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 152, ECHR 2000-XI, and Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
     
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, inter alia, Vernillo v. France, 20 February 1991, § 27, Series A no. 198, and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 22, Series A no. 112).
  • EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

    Brandstetter ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    However, whatever method is chosen, it should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment on them (see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, §§ 66-67, Series A no. 211; Milatová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 61811/00, § 65, ECHR 2005-V; and, a fortiori, Krcmár and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 35376/97, §§ 41-45, 3 March 2000; and OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 538, 20 September 2011).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

    KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    However, the personal attendance of the defendant does not take on the same crucial significance for an appeal hearing as it does for a trial hearing (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 106, Series A no. 168).
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    According to the Court's case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Kudla, cited above, § 91, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 33509/04

    BURDOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    In contrast to cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings or non-enforcement of judgments, where the Court accepted in principle that a compensatory remedy alone might suffice (see Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 17, ECHR 2002-VIII; Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 187, ECHR 2006-V; and Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 99, ECHR 2009 -...), the existence of a preventive remedy is indispensable for the effective protection of individuals against the kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3.
  • EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

    KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
    In assessing the question whether the applicant's presence was required at the hearing before the court of appeal, regard must be had, among other considerations, to the specific features of the proceedings in question and to the manner in which the applicant's interests were actually presented and protected before the appellate court, particularly in the light of the nature of the issues to be decided by it (see Helmers v. Sweden, 29 October 1991, §§ 31-32, Series A no. 212-A) and of their importance to the appellant (see Ekbatani, cited above, §§ 27-28; Kamasinski, cited above, § 106 in fine; Kremzow v. Austria, 21 September 1993, § 59, Series A no. 268-B; and Hermi, cited above, § 62).
  • EGMR, 29.10.1991 - 11826/85

    HELMERS c. SUÈDE

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

    MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

    HERMI v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 03.03.2000 - 35376/97

    KRCMAR AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 58331/09

    GREGACEVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 61811/00

    MILATOVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

    GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

    MURSIC c. CROATIE

    The Court observes at the outset that, although the problem of prison overcrowding has been examined in several cases against Croatia in which a violation of Article 3 was found (see Cenbauer v. Croatia, no. 73786/01, ECHR 2006-III; Testa v. Croatia, no. 20877/04, 12 July 2007; Stitic v. Croatia, no. 29660/03, 8 November 2007; Dolenec, cited above; Longin, cited above; and Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, 4 December 2014), it has not so far considered that conditions of detention in Croatia disclosed a structural problem from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention (see, by contrast, paragraphs 94-95 above).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 9671/15

    J.M.B. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

    Étant donné que le grief qu'ils avaient soulevé sous l'angle de l'article 3 avait été rejeté pour non-épuisement des voies de recours indemnitaires effectives qui existaient à cet égard, ils ne disposaient plus sous l'angle de l'article 3 d'un « grief défendable'propre à fonder un grief sur le terrain de l'article 13 (voir, par exemple, Lonic c. Croatie, no 8067/12, § 53, 4 décembre 2014)[6].
  • EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 37522/16

    VUKUSIC v. CROATIA

    The Court has previously found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case (see Mursic, cited above, §§ 151-153; Ulemek, cited above, §§ 127-131; and Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, § 74-78, 4 December 2014).
  • EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 55724/19

    DRACA v. CROATIA

    The Court's assessment 28. The Court notes that the fact that violations of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) have repeatedly been found in cases against Croatia originated in a situation where, under the relevant domestic law and practice at the time, the appellate courts did not notify defendants about a forthcoming session of the appeal panel if they were in detention and had a lawyer, or if in summary proceedings they had received a fine or a suspended sentence (see, among others, Zahirovic, cited above, §§ 58-64, 25 April 2013; Lonic v. Croatia, no. 8067/12, §§ 94-102, 4 December 2014; Arps v. Croatia, no. 23444/12, §§ 24-29, 25 October 2016; Bosak and Others v. Croatia, nos.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht