Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55495
EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,55495)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.10.2011 - 26088/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,55495)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Oktober 2011 - 26088/06 (https://dejure.org/2011,55495)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55495) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STANIMIROVIC v. SERBIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

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 ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

    BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

    The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, the victim's relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their application with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

    BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

    The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, the victim's relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their application with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    The Court reiterates that where a person makes a credible assertion, as in this case, that he has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of State agents, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
     
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    The authorities must take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of victims and the fact that people who have been subjected to serious ill-treatment will often be less ready or willing to make a complaint (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 133, ECHR 2004-IV, and the authorities cited therein).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

    BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    The authorities must take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of victims and the fact that people who have been subjected to serious ill-treatment will often be less ready or willing to make a complaint (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 133, ECHR 2004-IV, and the authorities cited therein).
  • EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

    SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    From that date until 9 July 2003, when the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance decision, he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, § 34, ECHR 2007-II).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46286/99

    HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    Furthermore, the applicant was not able to consult properly (notably, in private) with his lawyer prior to making the confession before the investigating judge on 13 February 2001 and made statements before the investigating judge on 14 and 19 February 2001 in the absence of his lawyer (compare Hacı Özen v. Turkey, no. 46286/99, § 102, 12 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

    Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    The fact that the police were able to secure the applicant's return to police custody and continue with his ill-treatment even after the applicant had been committed to a remand prison proves that his fears were reasonable (compare Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 65, ECHR 2007-VIII).
  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06
    While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 84, 1 March 2007).
  • EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

    STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

    Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see, for example, Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011, and Almasi, cited above, § 61).

    He was then detained for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 until his conviction by the Zrenjanin High Court on 30 June 2015 (see paragraph 43 above; see also, for example, Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 43, 18 October 2011).

  • EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10

    SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA

    The Court reiterates that, pursuant to the principle of legal certainty, which is a cornerstone of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a victim of an action allegedly in contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention must take steps to keep track of the relevant criminal proceedings or lack thereof, and to lodge his or her application with due expedition once he or she becomes, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see, amongst many other authorities, Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, 9 October 2012; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

    GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA

    16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
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