Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=07.07.2009&Aktenzeichen=25336/04
Timestamp: 2019-05-19 07:38:54+00:00

Document:
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2009,68233
EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68233)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.07.2009 - 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68233)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Juli 2009 - 25336/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68233)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68233) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Il y a lieu de prendre en compte le but du traitement infligé et, en particulier, de considérer s'il y a eu volonté d'humilier ou d'abaisser l'individu, mais l'absence d'une telle intention ne saurait forcément conduire à un constat de non-violation de l'article 3 (Peers c. Grèce, no 28524/95, §§ 68 et 74, CEDH 2001-III, et Grori c. Albanie, no 25336/04, § 125, 7 juillet 2009, et autres références citées).
EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 58555/10
RRAPO v. ALBANIA
In this connection, I can only repeat what I said at our meeting, namely that the failure of a Contracting State to comply with a Rule 39 measure may entail a breach of Article 34 of the Convention, which is binding upon your Government as a signatory thereto (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, §§ 172-195, 7 July 2009).
It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (Paladi, cited above, § 92; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 184, 7 July 2009; and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi, cited above, § 161).
EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07
MAKHARADZE AND SIKHARULIDZE v. GEORGIA
Another question is whether there could have been an objective impediment preventing the applicant's transfer to an establishment specialised in tuberculosis treatment, and if so, whether the Government took all reasonable steps to remove that impediment in due time (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 188, 7 July 2009).
EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10
ZOKHIDOV v. RUSSIA
It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 184, 7 July 2009, and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 161, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15
M.A. c. FRANCE
[45] Grori c. Albanie (no 25336/04, § 186, 7 juillet 2009).
EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 47450/11
VALCHEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
In addition, in many cases the former Commission and the Court have reviewed various aspects of permission-to-appeal or similar proceedings under that provision (see Webb v. the United Kingdom, no. 33186/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. and A.G.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45619/99, 29 February 2000; Nerva and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42295/98, 11 July 2000; Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; Walczak v. Poland (dec.), no. 77395/01, 7 May 2002; Stepinska v. France, no. 1814/02, §§ 15-19, 15 June 2004; Guz v. Poland (dec.), no. 29293/02, 19 May 2005; Martinie v. France [GC], no. 58675/00, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2006-VI; Stepenska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 24079/02, 12 June 2006; Jaczkó v. Hungary, no. 40109/03, § 29, 18 July 2006; Marini v. Albania, no. 3738/02, § 106, 18 December 2007; Mrúz v. Hungary, no. 3261/05, § 20, 14 October 2008; Lajos Németh v. Hungary, no. 3840/05, § 20, 21 October 2008; Makuszewski v. Poland, no. 35556/05, § 53, 13 January 2009; Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 199, 7 July 2009; Wnuk v. Poland (dec.), no. 38308/05, 1 September 2009; Jakupi v. Albania (dec.), no. 11186/03, 1 December 2009; Nersesyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 15371/07, §§ 23-25, 19 January 2010; Bachowski v. Poland (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; and Dunn v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62793/10, §§ 27-40, 23 October 2012).
EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 31928/15
KONOVALCHUK v. UKRAINE
It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed of the situation (see ibid., § 92, and Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 184, 7 July 2009).
It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Paladi, cited above, § 92; Gror v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 184, 7 July 2009; and Patranin, cited above, § 48).
Although the purpose of such treatment is a factor to be taken into account, in particular the question of whether it was intended to humiliate or debase the victim, the absence of any such purpose does not inevitably lead to a finding that there has been no violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Grori v. Albania, § 125, no. 25336/04, with further references).
EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36435/07
RAFFRAY TADDEI c. FRANCE
La Cour renvoie aux principes fondamentaux qui se dégagent de sa jurisprudence relative à l'article à l'obligation positive de l'Etat de s'assurer que tout prisonnier est détenu dans des conditions compatibles avec le respect de la dignité humaine, que les modalités d'exécution de la mesure ne soumettent pas l'intéressé à une détresse ou une épreuve d'une intensité qui excède le niveau inévitable de souffrance inhérent à la détention et que, eu égard aux exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement, la santé et le bien-être du prisonnier sont assurés de manière adéquate, notamment par l'administration des soins médicaux requis (voir, parmi de nombreux autres, Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, CEDH 2000-XI ; Ä°lhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, CEDH 2000-VII ; CEDH 2000-XI ; Mouise, précité ; Matencio c. France, no 58749/00, 15 janvier 2004 ; Sakkopoulos c. Grèce, no 61828/00, 15 janvier 2004 ; Gennadiy Naumenko c. Ukraine, no 42023/98, 10 février 2004 ; Poghossian c. Géorgie, no 9870/07, 24 février 2009 ; Grori c. Albanie, no 25336/04, 7 juillet 2009).
EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 33526/08
EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 1647/16
KHUSEYNOV v. RUSSIA
EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 29070/15
PIVOVARNIK v. UKRAINE
EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 41153/06
CASES OF DYBEKU AND GRORI AGAINST ALBANIA
EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 5614/05
DEMIAN c. ROUMANIE
EGMR - 58555/10 (anhängig)
EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 47403/15
FRROKU v. ALBANIA

References: Art. 3
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 34
 Art. 41
 Art. 3
 Art. 5
 Art. 34
 l'article 3
 § 125
 § 92
 § 184
 § 161
 § 188
 § 184
 § 161
 § 186
 § 29
 § 106
 § 20
 § 20
 § 53
 § 199
 § 92
 § 184
 § 92
 § 184
 § 48
 § 125