Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLOKHIN c. RUSSIE

  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (Article 35-1 - Epuisement des voies de recours internes;Délai de six mois);Violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant;Traitement inhumain) (Volet matériel);Violation de l'article 5 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 47152/06
• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• EGMR, 10.11.2004 - 67335/01

  ACHOUR c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  Processing a child offender through the criminal justice system on the sole basis of his status of being a juvenile delinquent, which lacks legal definition, cannot be considered compatible with due process and the principle of legality (see, mutatis mutandis, Achour v. France [GC], no. 67335/01, §§ 45-47, ECHR 2006-IV, relating to the legal classification of recidivism).

  It is also to be noted that ascribing a particular status to an individual in the criminal justice system may simply be a consequence of the commission of a series of acts by that individual, as for example in Achour v. France ([GC], no. 67335/01, ECHR 2006-IV), where the Court made an exception regarding the ad hominem principle (the applicant being a multi-recidivist) in view of the proven in rem series of acts for which the defendant had been convicted.

• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  In such circumstances, however, the interim custody measure must be speedily followed by actual application of a regime of educational supervision in a setting (open or closed) designed - and with sufficient resources - for the purpose (see Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, §§ 50 and 52, Series A no. 129, and D.G. v. Ireland, cited above, § 78).

  However, we note that, as the Court has previously held (see Bouamar v. Belgium, no. 9106/80, § 55, 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129), a finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 does not dispense it from examining whether there has been a failure by the member State to comply with Article 5 § 4 since the two provisions are distinct.

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII, with further references; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV; Amirov, cited above, § 80; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  The Court reiterates that, as the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1, it often examines the complaints under both provisions taken together (see, among many other authorities, Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, § 37, ECHR 2001-II; Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 82, ECHR 2001-II; and Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 29, Series A no. 277-A).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 16133/08

  INSANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  Moreover, where the applicant complains of numerous procedural defects, the Court may examine the various grounds giving rise to the complaint in turn in order to determine whether the proceedings, considered as a whole, were fair (see Insanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 16133/08, §§ 159 et seq.
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  It is essential that a child charged with an offence is dealt with in a manner which takes full account of his age, level of maturity and intellectual and emotional capacities, and that steps are taken to promote his ability to understand and participate in the proceedings (see Adamkiewicz v. Poland, no. 54729/00, § 70, 2 March 2010; Panovits v. Cyprus, no. 4268/04, § 67, 11 December 2008; V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IX; and T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 84, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII, with further references; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV; Amirov, cited above, § 80; and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  Nevertheless, the legal characterisation of the procedure under national law cannot be the sole criterion of relevance for the applicability of Article 6. Otherwise, the application of this provision would be left to the discretion of the Contracting States to a degree that might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention (see Å�ztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, § 49, Series A no. 73; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 68, Series A no. 80; Ezeh and Connors, cited above, § 83; and Matyjek v. Poland (dec.), no. 38184/03, § 45, 30 May 2006).
• EGMR, 24.02.1994 - 12547/86

  BENDENOUN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 47152/06

  Indeed, in the Court's case-law criminal penalties have customarily been recognised as comprising the twin objectives of punishment and deterrence (see Å�ztürk, cited above, § 53; Bendenoun v. France, 24 February 1994, § 47, Series A no. 284; Lauko v. Slovakia, 2 September 1998, § 58, Reports 1998-VI; and Ezeh and Connors, cited above, §§ 102 and 105).
• EGMR, 21.02.1984 - 8544/79

  Öztürk ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS CONTRE CHYPRE
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 54729/00

  ADAMKIEWICZ AGAINST POLAND
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 33394/96

  PRICE CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 33670/96

  KONIARSKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 62303/13

  Bayerns Justiz verletzte Menschenrechte

  Die Beurteilung dieses Mindestmaßes ist relativ; sie hängt von den gesamten Umständen des Falles wie der Dauer der Behandlung, den körperlichen oder seelischen Folgen und zuweilen vom Geschlecht, Alter und Gesundheitszustand des Opfers ab (siehe u. a. Blokhin./. Russland [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 47152/06, Rdnr. 135, ECHR 2016, mit weiteren Verweisen).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Thus, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).

  Mirilashivili v. Russia (dec.), no. 6293/04, 10 July 2007, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 137, ECHR 2016.

• EuGH, 15.09.2022 - C-347/21

  DD (Réitération de l'audition d'un témoin) - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - …

  Ausnahmen von diesem Grundsatz können nur unter dem Vorbehalt der Wahrung der Verteidigungsrechte zugelassen werden, die im Allgemeinen verlangen, dass dem Angeklagten eine angemessene und ausreichende Gelegenheit gegeben wird, belastende Zeugenaussagen zu bestreiten und deren Urheber zu befragen, sei es zum Zeitpunkt ihrer Aussage oder in einem späteren Stadium (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteile vom 15. Dezember 2011, Al-Khawadja und Tahery/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2011:1215JUD002676605, § 118, sowie vom 23. März 2016, Blokhin/Russland, CE:ECHR:2016:0323JUD004715206, § 200).

 
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 10959/07

  KAZAN c. TURQUIE

  Ainsi, en règle générale, le délai de six mois commence à courir à la date de la décision définitive intervenue dans le cadre du processus d'épuisement des voies de recours internes (Blokhin c. Russie [GC], no 47152/06, § 106, CEDH 2016).
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 57273/16

  CHAABAN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  « 131. [En] règle générale, le délai de six mois commence à courir à la date de la décision définitive intervenue dans le cadre du processus d'épuisement des voies de recours internes (Blokhin c. Russie [GC], no 47152/06, § 106, CEDH 2016).
• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 1964/07

  KARALAR v. TURKEY

  Thus, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 47212/08

  BOSNJAK v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 12000/16

  PROTOPOPOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 62198/16

  SHVETS v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 106, ECHR 2016).