Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRZEMYK v. POLAND

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Przemyk v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  WASILEWSKA AND KALUCKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that the sum proposed in the declaration in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention does not bear a reasonable relation to the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases against Poland in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, among many other authorities, Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, § 87, 14 June 2011; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 70, 23 February 2010; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 69, 24 March 2009l Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 122, 9 December 2008).

  28975/04 and 33406/04, § 59, 23 February 2010; and Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 104, 9 December 2008).

• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  MOJSIEJEW v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that the sum proposed in the declaration in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention does not bear a reasonable relation to the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases against Poland in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, among many other authorities, Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, § 87, 14 June 2011; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 70, 23 February 2010; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 69, 24 March 2009l Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 122, 9 December 2008).

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 53, 24 March 2009; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos.

• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12033/86

  FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  It is true that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192, and Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-VII).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2006 - 46917/99

  STANKIEWICZ c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  It is true that the Court's power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, mutatis mutandis, Fredin v. Sweden (no. 1), 18 February 1991, § 50, Series A no. 192, and Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  Finally, the Court reiterates that its judgments serve not only to decide those cases brought before it but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 154, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 86, Series A no. 39; and Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  Finally, the Court reiterates that its judgments serve not only to decide those cases brought before it but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 154, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 86, Series A no. 39; and Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  The Court has consistently examined the question of procedural obligations under Article 2 separately from the question of compliance with the substantive obligation and, on several occasions, a breach of a procedural obligation has been alleged in the absence of any complaint as to the substantive aspect of this Convention provision (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, §§ 41-57, ECHR 2002-I, and Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, §§ 86 and 94-118, 27 June 2006).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  This is an established principle in the Court's case-law (see, among many other authorities, Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 70, ECHR 2006-III) based on the general rule of international law embodied in Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 53, 24 March 2009; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99

  CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  As regards the sentencing, the Court has previously found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in cases where State officials had caused death by acts of police brutality and where the execution of sentences imposed on them had been suspended (see Ali and Ay?Ÿe Duran, cited above, §§ 70-72; Bekta?Ÿ and Özalp, cited above, § 50; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 47, 27 May 2010; and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 60, 23 April 2013); or the sentence was enforced with a significant delay (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, §§ 31-33, 13 October 2016); or they were not punished owing to the punishment becoming time-barred (see Przemyk v. Poland, no. 22426/11, § 71, 17 September 2013, and Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 150, 18 July 2017); or the sentence was too lenient (see Przemyk, cited above, § 72, where a police officer was initially sentenced to four years' imprisonment for charges of battery resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment, and Yeter v. Turkey, no. 33750/03, § 68, 13 January 2009, where a police officer was initially sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for charges of torture resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to four years and two months' imprisonment and he served only nineteen days of it); or where the police officers who committed murder were not banned from public service (see Vazagashvili and Shanava, cited above, § 92, where two police officers convicted for aggravated murder of the applicant's son were sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment but could potentially join the law-enforcement system of the respondent State anew after they have served their prison sentences); or where the trial court suspended the pronouncement of the judgment for the offence of unlawful killing on the ground that it had not been intentional (see, for example, Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 60, 14 January 2014, and Hasan Köse v. Turkey, no. 15014/11, § 37, 18 December 2018).
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 28976/05

  PREITE c. ITALIE

  Après avoir examiné les termes de la déclaration du Gouvernement et eu égard à l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire, la Cour estime que la déclaration en question n'offre pas une base suffisante pour conclure que le respect des droits de l'homme n'exige pas la poursuite de l'examen de la requête (Przemyk c. Pologne, no 22426/11, § 39, 17 septembre 2013 ; Rossi et Variale c. Italie, no 2911/05, 3 juin 2014).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 35516/13

  SCERVINO ET SCAGLIONI c. ITALIE

  En particulier, elle a déjà jugé que le montant proposé dans une déclaration unilatérale peut être considéré comme une base suffisante, au regard des montants qu'elle-même a accordés dans des cas similaires, pour rayer du rôle tout ou partie d'une requête (Przemyk c. Pologne, no 22426/11, § 39, 17 septembre 2013).
• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 58349/09

  FRANCISKA STEFANCIC v. SLOVENIA

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 223, ECHR 2004-III, and Przemyk v. Poland, no. 22426/11, § 65, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 7837/10

  GAVRILOV v.

  In this connection the Court reiterates that the procedural obligation under Article 2 requires the competent authorities to act with exemplary diligence throughout the period in which they can reasonably be expected to take measures with the aim of elucidating the circumstances of a death and establishing responsibility for it (see Przemyk v. Poland, no. 22426/11, § 47, 17 September 2013).