Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEGANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 14+3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06
• EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 46423/06

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  However, the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against grave acts such as attacks on the physical integrity of a person, where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake, requires efficient criminal-law provisions (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  In this connection it stresses that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France, [GC], no. 25803/94, § 101, ECHR 1999-V, and Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 48, ECHR 2006-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  The Court reiterates that 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 is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C, and A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 20, Reports 1998-VI).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  Treatment has been held by the Court to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences and grave attacks on physical and moral integrity to go unpunished (see Öneryıldız, cited above, §§ 95 and 96; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104-109, ECHR 2000-VII; and Okkalı, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 13178/03

  MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  In this connection it stresses that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France, [GC], no. 25803/94, § 101, ECHR 1999-V, and Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 48, ECHR 2006-XI).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  WIESER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, opinion of the Commission, § 67, Series A no. 280, and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  In addition, for an investigation to be considered effective, the authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, a detailed statement concerning the allegations from the alleged victim, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, additional medical reports (see, in particular, Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  In addition, for an investigation to be considered effective, the authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, a detailed statement concerning the allegations from the alleged victim, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, additional medical reports (see, in particular, Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

  Furthermore, Article 3 requires States to put in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against personal integrity, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (see, mutatis mutandis, A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 22, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 96, ECHR 2005-VII), and this requirement also extends to ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see Secic, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 40116/02

  SECIC c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 44093/98

  ÇELIK AND IMRET v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 42234/02

  ERDEM v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 36505/02

  AUGUST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 27454/11

  ORLIK v. UKRAINE

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the present case the authorities failed to conduct the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment expeditiously, which led to the expiry of the relevant time-limit and made it impossible to pursue prosecution in respect of one of the alleged perpetrators any further (see and compare Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 85, 25 June 2009; Valiuliene v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 85, 26 March 2013; and Aleksandr Nikonenko, cited above, § 45).