Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,38535
EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.07.2004 - 47940/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Juli 2004 - 47940/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38535)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,38535) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BALOGH v. HUNGARY

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Préliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (87)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.

    The requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 42, § 115).

    The majority of my colleagues in the Chamber has rightly pointed out that it is well-established in the case-law of the Court 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 the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.

    The majority of my colleagues in the Chamber has rightly pointed out that it is well-established in the case-law of the Court 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 the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).

  • EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

    ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    In such cases, proof "beyond reasonable doubt" was required, which may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000-VI; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 14. In its opinion, and having regard to the all the materials in the case file, there is no substantiation of the applicant's allegation that he was discriminated against in the enjoyment of any of the Convention rights relied on (compare and contrast Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 155 to 175, ECHR 2004-).
  • EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 31561/96

    FARKAS v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    Rather, its role is to review under the Convention the decisions taken by them in the exercise of their powers (c.f. Tkácik v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 42472/98, 14 October 2003; Farkas v. Hungary (dec.), no. 31561/96, 2 March 2000; Bronda v. Italy, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1491, § 59).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    For its part, the Court is satisfied that the investigations conducted were thorough and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of any State agent found to be responsible in the light of the evidence gathered (compare and contrast, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 130-136, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    However, the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 122).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

    MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

    GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

    Pour pouvoir être jugé effectif, un recours doit être susceptible de remédier directement à la situation incriminée et présenter des perspectives raisonnables de succès (Sejdovic c. Italie [GC], no 56581/00, § 46, CEDH 2006-II, Vuckovic et autres, précité, § 74 et Balogh c. Hongrie, no 47940/99, § 30, 20 juillet 2004).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

    M.S. v. CROATIA

    To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly resolving the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht