Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tautkus v. Lithuania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  The assessment of this minimum is, by nature, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment or punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, amongst many other authorities, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 100, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  Moreover, as concerns the authorities" duty under Article 3 to conduct an effective official investigation into any alleged ill-treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see Ay v. Turkey, no. 30951/96, § 60, 22 March 2005, and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII), the Court finds that in the instant case this obligation has also been fulfilled, as R.J. was found guilty of having caused the applicant severe bodily injury and sentenced to two years and six months" imprisonment, which was added to his prior conviction.
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  The Court observes that according to its constant case-law the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment administered not only by State agents but also by private individuals (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V).

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  [29] See Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, §§ 115-116, Reports 1998-VIII, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II.
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  Furthermore, in accordance with the Court's consistent case-law, the domestic courts are best placed to assess the relevance of evidence to the issues in the case (see, amongst many authorities and, mutatis mutandis, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B), had such evidence or issues been presented to the national courts, which was not the case.
• EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

  KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  On this point the Court also reiterates that, in principle, and without prejudice to its power to examine the compatibility of national decisions with the Convention, it is not the Court's role to assess the facts which have led a national court to adopt one decision rather than another; otherwise, it would be acting as a court of fourth instance and would disregard the limits imposed on its action (see, mutatis mutandis, Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 44, Series A no. 296-C); G.N. and Others v. Italy, no. 43134/05, § 89, 1 December 2009; and Papapetrou and Others v. Greece, no. 17380/09, § 63, 12 July 2011).
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  That being so, the Court has consistently interpreted that obligation in such a manner as not to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 189, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 78, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  We stress that it would be inappropriate and contrary to the Court's subsidiary role under the Convention for it to attempt to establish the facts of this case on its own, duplicating the efforts of the domestic authorities, which are better placed and equipped for that purpose (see, for example, McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 103, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 25001/07

  STASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  That being so, the Court has consistently interpreted that obligation in such a manner as not to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 189, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts); Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 78, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 10904/05

  PRYNDA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  In line with its well-established practice, the Strasbourg Court should confine its examination of the application to an evaluation of the domestic investigation into the matter (see Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 54, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 35021/05

  KOVALKOVS v. LATVIA

• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 10511/10

  MURRAY c. PAYS-BAS

  As I argued in my separate opinion in Tautkus v. Lithuania (no. 29474/09, 27 November 2012), and later on, in the company of Judge Turkovic, in Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015), the right to an individualised sentence plan applies to mentally sane offenders, especially those sentenced to life or long-term imprisonment, that is, a prison sentence or sentences totalling five years or more.
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24069/03

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  [8] Consequently, an individual sentence plan, with a comprehensive and updated risk and needs assessment, for inmates sentenced to life or long-term imprisonment (that is, a prison sentence or sentences totalling five years or more) is an international positive obligation of States Parties under Article 3 of the Convention (see my separate opinion in Taukus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

  CEESAY v. AUSTRIA

  Furthermore the Court has emphasised that the positive obligation to protect persons in custody must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, in the context of Article 3, Pantea v. Romania, nï‚° 33343/96, § 189, 3 June 2003; Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012; in the context of Article 2 see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447/09, §§ 71-72, 19 July 2012, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

  M.C. v. POLAND

  Such a positive obligation cannot be considered to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, 4 December 2003, ECHR 2003-XII; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 59, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 35523/06

  ISAYEVA v. UKRAINE

  In the present case, it finds that while the part of the applicant's complaint concerning the length of the domestic proceedings is to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the issue of the alleged failure to identify and hold accountable those responsible for the incident of 2 April 1998 falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 62, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

  KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

  The incident, which the applicant has not described in detail, was apparently not very serious, brief in duration, and a one-off (see, mutatis mutandis, Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 58, 27 November 2012, and contrast Premininy, cited above, §§ 79, 80 and 86, and Oshurko, cited above, § 72), and the applicant did not call for help while it was taking place.