Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOWAK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-2 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of P7-1 Non-pecuniary damage -award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  This investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).

  The list of exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV, and Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-III).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  The Court reiterates that "where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  That right is of primary importance in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 65, Series A no. 12, and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  Furthermore, detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (compare Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111, and Saadi, cited above, § 69) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007; and Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 80, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  The Court reiterates that "where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so that it meets the standard of "lawfulness" set by the Convention -a standard which requires that all law be sufficiently precise to allow the person - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  The list of exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 is an exhaustive one (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 170, ECHR 2000-IV, and Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 42, Series A no. 311) and only a narrow interpretation of those exceptions is consistent with the aim of that provision, namely to ensure that no one is arbitrarily deprived of his or her liberty (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, § 58, Series A no. 22, and Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-III).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2011 - 60846/10

  The minimum standards of effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  69234/11 and 2 others, §§ 126-27, 11 February 2016); or the authorities manipulate procedures to prolong the detention for the same purpose (see Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, §§ 92-95), or to delay having to obtain judicial authorisation for the detention, as required under domestic law (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 86-88, 24 June 2010), or to proceed with a disguised extradition (see Bozano v. France, cited above, §§ 59-60; Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 58, 31 March 2011; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 163 and 165, 18 April 2013; and Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, § 65, 15 January 2015); or the applicant is illegally abducted and surrendered to another State (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 109-15 and 148-51, 23 September 2010); or the citizens of another State are indiscriminately arrested with a view to being deported en masse as a measure of reprisal (see Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 185-86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) - the Court finds an absence of a legitimate ground for the deprivation of liberty and accordingly a breach of Article 5 § 1.
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11

  KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  The Court notes that the scope of application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 applies only to aliens "lawfully resident" in the territory of the State in question (see, inter alia, Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos. 14594/07 and 6 others, § 87, 20 December 2016; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 228, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 79, 31 March 2011).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 24895/06

  MARZOHL c. SUISSE

  Pour déterminer si elle a reçu assez d'informations et suffisamment tôt, il faut avoir égard aux particularités de l'espèce (Nowak c. Ukraine, no 60846/10, § 63, 31 mars 2011; Abdolkhani et Karimnia c. Turquie, no 30471/08, § 136, 22 septembre 2009 ; Galliani c. Roumanie, no 69273/01, § 53, 10 juin 2008 ; Murray c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 28 octobre 1994, série A no 300-A, p. 31, § 72).