Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 6 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 24746/94
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
Wird zitiert von ... (85) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 106; concerning witnesses e.g. Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; concerning forensic evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89). - EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93
MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see the Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 2439-2440, §§ 102-104; Cakıcı v. Turkey cited above, §§ 80, 87 and 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey, cited above, § 109; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, [Section I] ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107). - EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC] no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 100, and also Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC] ECHR 1999-IV, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-V, § 32 and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-VI, § 82). - EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93
GÜL v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 106; concerning witnesses e.g. Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; concerning forensic evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
- EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 55721/07
Britische Soldaten sollen Kriegsverbrechen begangen haben
Toutefois, l'enquête doit également être suffisamment vaste pour permettre aux autorités qui en sont chargées de prendre en considération non seulement les actes des agents de l'Etat qui ont directement eu recours à la force meurtrière mais aussi l'ensemble des circonstances les ayant entourés, notamment le cadre juridique ou réglementaire en vigueur ainsi que la préparation des opérations en cours et le contrôle exercé sur elles, au cas où ces éléments seraient nécessaires pour déterminer si l'Etat a satisfait ou non à l'obligation que l'article 2 fait peser sur lui de protéger la vie (voir, par implication, McCann, précité, §§ 150 et 162 ; Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 128, CEDH 2001-III (extraits) ; McKerr, précité, §§ 143 et 151 ; Shanaghan c. Royaume-Uni, no 37715/97, §§ 100-125, 4 mai 2001 ; Finucane c. Royaume-Uni, no 29178/95, §§ 77-78, CEDH 2003-VIII ; Natchova, précité, §§ 114-115, ainsi que, mutatis mutandis, Tzekov c. Bulgarie, no 45500/99, § 71, 23 février 2006). - EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 25965/04
RANTSEV v. CYPRUS AND RUSSIA
This requires not only hierarchical or institutional independence but also practical independence (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 120, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001). - EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02
Opuz ./. Türkei
(...)La Cour a également admis que pouvait être considérée comme discriminatoire une politique ou une mesure générale qui avait des effets préjudiciables disproportionnés sur un groupe de personnes, même si elle ne visait pas spécifiquement ce groupe (Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 154, 4 mai 2001 ; Hoogendijk c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 58461/00, 6 janvier 2005), et qu'une discrimination potentiellement contraire à la Convention pouvait résulter d'une situation de fait (Zarb Adami c. Malte, no 17209/02, § 76, CEDH 2006-....).
- EGMR, 22.05.2014 - 49278/09
"Herr Doktor from Germany" ist in Großbritannien nicht mehr so gerne gesehen
Der Gerichtshof wiederholt in diesem Zusammenhang, dass er in früheren Entscheidungen, die die Verantwortlichkeit staatlicher Amtsträger im Zusammenhang mit Todesfällen betrafen, festgestellt hat, dass nach Artikel 2 Abs. 1 bei der behördlichen Untersuchung der zugrunde liegenden Ereignisse "die nächsten Angehörigen des Opfers in dem zur Wahrung ihrer rechtmäßigen Interessen erforderlichen Umfang in den Prozess einzubinden" sind (siehe Hugh Jordan./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24746/94, Rdnr. 109, ECHR 2001-III (Auszüge); und Kelly u. a../. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30054/96, Rdnr. 98, 4.[1] Hugh Jordan./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III (Auszüge).
- EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96
ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Just as Articles 2 and 3 implied an investigatory requirement (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99 ECHR 2002-II; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), so a similar obligation arose under Article 8 of the Convention. - EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09
HEMSWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
On 7 June 2001 the Coroner opened a pre-inquest hearing, in 16 cases including into John Hemsworth's death, to hear submissions on the implications of the judgments of this Court of 4 May 2001 in certain cases concerning deaths in Northern Ireland (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, (extracts); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, both in ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97; and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96).In this regard the present two cases must be distinguished from the case of Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom (no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III), where the applicant had not availed himself of the opportunity of civil proceedings, as well as from the case of Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I), where the applicant had in fact come to an agreement on compensation.
As I understand it, the underlying logic in previous Northern Ireland cases, such as Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III, is that the system of civil remedies in Northern Ireland (and indeed in the United Kingdom in general) is sufficiently well armed and strong to constitute, in principle, an effective means of establishing facts and liability and of obtaining adequate compensation, as appropriate, in relation to killings or serious ill-treatment allegedly committed by State agents.
- EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02
Tod eines Demonstranten beim G-8-Gipfel in Genua
Only unusual circumstances had led the Court, in certain cases, to find a procedural violation of Article 2 without finding a substantive violation of the same provision or of Article 38 of the Convention (the Government referred, by way of example, to Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom (no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III)), and this had in any case given rise to dissenting opinions (the Government cited the example of Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 52391/99, ECHR 2007-VI)). - EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03
ORSUS ET AUTRES c. CROATIE
The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure which is apparently neutral but has disproportionately prejudicial effects on persons or groups of persons who, as for instance in the present case, are identifiable only on the basis of an ethnic criterion, may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001, and Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58461/00, 6 January 2005; and Sampanis, cited above, § 68), unless that measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate, necessary and proportionate. - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
1778-79, §§ 83-84, and the recent Northern Irish judgments, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 120, and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, both of 4 May 2001. - EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 52391/99
RAMSAHAI ET AUTRES c. PAYS-BAS
Supervision by another authority, however independent, has been found not to be a sufficient safeguard for the independence of the investigation (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 120, 4 May 2001, and McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 128, ECHR 2001-III).We still think that a prompt and public decision given by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force is essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 108 and 136-40, 4 May 2001).
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09
McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96
BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 28864/18
GRIBBEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 71593/11
B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
MIZIGÁROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 7186/09
DI TRIZIO c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
BIAO v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 5527/08
BENNETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 32526/05
SAMPANIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
- EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00
ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11
JELIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 32444/96
KANLIBAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08
A. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99
TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95
FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94
CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14
HAÁSZ AND SZABÓ v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10
RANDELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 4704/04
PALIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97
SIMSEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 27.10.2015 - 23551/10
ÖZPOLAT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 4571/04
ISRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 44587/98
ISAAK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 28290/95
GÜNGÖR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00
DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 36832/97
SOLOMOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 23458/02
GIULIANI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 38187/97
ADALI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 13207/12
STJEPANOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 16503/08
ZERAJIC AND GOJKOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 62279/09
ATIMAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 26824/04
KELLER v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 36150/04
DAMAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 1503/02
KHAMZAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05
GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 21080/05
VAGAPOVA AND ZUBIRAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 40073/98
IHSAN BILGIN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98
CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09
SAIDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 30173/12
JØRGENSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 35152/09
DALAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 66953/09
MILEUSNIC ET MILEUSNIC-ESPENHEIM c. CROATIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 69842/10
ALBAKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 47063/08
MUJKANOVIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2215/05
ARAPKHANOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 47357/08
ALIKAJ ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05
VAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2009 - 43398/06
KHANTIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 35052/04
ZABIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 15569/06
ASADULAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05
KHUMAYDOV AND KHUMAYDOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.05.2009 - 12417/05
TURLUYEVA AND KHAMIDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 41498/04
SAYDALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 28079/04
GREEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 45661/99
CARABULEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 35732/09
DEMIROVIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 29620/05
SEREMET v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 323/04
MECHEVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 74832/01
MIZIGÁROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 15440/05
PUKHIGOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 33264/04
KHALITOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 29971/04
KATS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 75527/01
UCAK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 41773/98
SCAVUZZO-HAGER ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 56120/13
BAYSULTANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13
NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 7175/06
ZUBAN AND HAMIDOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 66758/09
FAZLIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 27001/06
AMANAT ILYASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 46260/99
EVCIL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 31865/06
MURATSPAHIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 12457/05
REZVANOV AND REZVANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 1396/06
McBRIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 20.05.2003 - 10231/02
ZAMULA and OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 34690/12
MAJLATH AND BARTA v. HUNGARY
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 28883/95, 37715/97, 24746/94, 30054/96, 43290/98, 29178/95, 43098/09, 58559/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McKERR CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES
Etat défendeur incité à prendre des mesures générales (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
McKERR AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM AND 7 OTHER CASES
Respondent State urged to take measures of a general character (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 28883/95
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
- EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 28883/95, 37715/97, 24746/94, 30054/96, 43290/98, 29178/95, 43098/09, 58559/09
Wird zitiert von ...
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
BIAO c. DANEMARK
The Court has accepted in previous cases that a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a group (see, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001).The Court has accepted in previous cases that a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a group of persons (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 24746/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 24746/94
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 24746/94
As regards the procedural requirement that the State carry out an effective investigation into deaths caused by its agents (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 18984/91, § 161, ECHR 1995-III), the parties differ as to the scope of the obligation and, in particular, as to whether civil proceedings are of any relevance depending as thy do on the initiative of the deceased's relatives who have to establish their claims to a certain standard of proof. - EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93
AKSOY c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2000 - 24746/94
Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).