Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALSAN v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Positive ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BALSAN v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 49645/09

  Accordingly, the Court joins these questions to the merits and will examine them under Article 3 of the Convention (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 116, 9 June 2009).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 49645/09

  On this point, the Court has held that in certain circumstances the State's procedural obligations to ensure the effective participation of the victims in the investigation of their complaints of ill-treatment may extend to the issues of providing effective access to free legal representation (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 117, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 26608/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 49645/09

  The Court has already held that failure by a State to protect women against domestic violence breaches their right to equal protection under the law and that this failure does not need to be intentional (see, for recent examples, T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 26608/11, § 57, 28 January 2014, and M.G. v. Turkey, cited above, § 115).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 646/10

  ERSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 49645/09

  Therefore, having regard to the nature and the substance of the applicant's complaints in this particular case, the Court finds that they fall to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention (see E.M. v. Romania, no. 43994/05, § 51, 30 October 2012; and M.G. v. Turkey, no. 646/10, § 62, 22 March 2016).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 61382/09

  B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 49645/09

  As regards the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the applicant and the effects of the treatment to which she had been subjected, the Government noted that forensic experts had established that the applicant had suffered minor bodily harm that had not constituted serious psychological or physical violence (contrast B. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 61382/09, § 47, 16 July 2013) or repeated acts of violence over a short period of time (contrast Valiulienė v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 68, 26 March 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 9993/24

  A.C.M.U. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Rn. 80 The Court reiterates that, in order to determine whether the authorities should have been aware of the risk of repeated acts of violence, it has, in a number of cases, identified and taken into account the following factors: the perpetrator's history of violent behaviour and failure to comply with the terms of a protection order (see Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 59, 28 May 2013); the escalation of violence representing a continuing threat to the victim's health and safety (see Opuz, cited above, §§ 135-36); and the victim's repeated requests for help by means of emergency calls, as well as formal complaints and requests addressed to the chief of police (see Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, §§ 135-36, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 55974/16

  TUNIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  The Court has had regard in particular to the following factors to establish that State authorities ought to have been aware of the risk of recurrent violence: the perpetrator's history of violent behaviour and failure to comply with the terms of a protection order (see Eremia, cited above, § 59), an escalation of violence representing a continuing threat to the health and safety of the victims (see Opuz, cited above, §§ 135-36), the perpetrator's access to weapons (see Kontrová, cited above, § 52), and the victim's repeated pleas for assistance through making emergency calls, formal complaints and petitions to the head of police (see Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, § 62, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 54773/19

  R.S. v. ROMANIA

  On 12 April 2018 Y requested, on behalf of the applicant, a protective order against X, under the provisions of Law no. 217/2003 on preventing and combating domestic violence (see Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, § 36, 23 May 2017).

  The relevant domestic provisions and international standards concerning the protection of children against domestic violence are described in D.M.D. v. Romania (no. 23022/13, §§ 21-22, 25-34, 3 October 2017), E.M. v. Romania (no. 43994/05, §§ 43-49, 30 October 2012), Buturugă v. Romania (no. 56867/15, §§ 32-42, 11 February 2020) and Bălşan v. Romania (no. 49645/09, §§ 36-44, 23 May 2017).

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 56867/15

  BUTURUGA c. ROUMANIE

  De plus, la Cour estime qu'il convient en l'espèce d'envisager globalement toutes les voies de recours dont la requérante disposait (voir, mutatis mutandis, Kalucza c. Hongrie, no 57693/10, §§ 49-50, 24 avril 2012) et qu'il serait formaliste de scinder le grief et de calculer en l'espèce le délai de six mois à compter du 13 septembre 2014, date à laquelle l'ordonnance de protection a pris fin, alors que le grief de la requérante vise également l'enquête pénale pour menaces et coups et violences qui s'est finalisée par la décision du 25 mai 2015 du tribunal de première instance (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus ; pour un examen global de tous les recours à la disposition de la requérante victime de violences domestiques, voir Bălşan c. Roumanie, no 49645/09, §§ 64-69, 23 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 40419/19

  VOLODINA v. RUSSIA

  The States have a positive obligation to establish and apply effectively a system punishing all forms of domestic violence and to provide sufficient safeguards for the victims (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 145, ECHR 2009, and Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, § 57, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 9077/18

  Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  There is no evidence that any of the police officers or other officials involved in handling Mrs V.'s complaints in relation to Mr V. attempted to dissuade her from pursuing remedies or from seeking protection against him, or that they otherwise sought to hamper her efforts in that respect or downplay the seriousness of the threat from Mr V. (compare A. v. Croatia, cited above, § 97, and contrast Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 87, 28 May 2013, and Munteanu, cited above, § 81), or that they suggested that Mrs V. was herself at fault for the situation she was in (contrast Balsan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, § 81, 23 May 2017, and Munteanu, cited above, § 81 in fine).
• EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  J.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application

  The Court has further held that victims of gender based violence may be able to invoke the protection of Article 14 in conjunction with the relevant substantive provisions of the Convention (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009; Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 45512/11

  GALOVIC v. CROATIA

  What is important in this context is for the domestic criminal-law system to effectively deal with instances of domestic violence, individually and in their aggregate, by producing adequate deterrent effects capable of ensuring the effective prevention of unlawful acts (see, for example, Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, §§ 71 and 87, 23 May 2017; see also paragraph 71 above).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 32715/19

  SCAVONE c. ITALIE

  La qualité de l'appréciation des risques 123. La Cour rappelle que, afin d'établir si les autorités auraient dû avoir connaissance du risque répété d'actes de violence, elle a, dans un certain nombre d'affaires, relevé et pris en compte les éléments suivants: les antécédents de comportement violent de l'auteur et le non-respect des termes d'une ordonnance de protection (Eremia, précité, § 59), l'escalade dans la violence représentant une menace continue pour la santé et la sécurité des victimes (Opuz, précité, §§ 135-36) et les demandes d'aide répétées de la victime par le biais d'appels d'urgence, ainsi que les plaintes formelles et les demandes adressées au chef de la police (Balsan c. Roumanie, no 49645/09, §§ 135-136, 23 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 53891/20

  A.E. v. BULGARIA

  The Court has repeatedly held that where an individual raises an arguable complaint that he or she has been ill-treated at the hands of a private party, the State has a duty to conduct an effective official investigation (see, among many other authorities, M. and Others v. Italy and Bulgaria, no. 40020/03, § 100, 31 July 2012; Eremia, cited above, § 51, and Bălşan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, § 57, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 17.11.2022 - 29417/17

  MALAGIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 15343/15

  ASSOCIATION INNOCENCE EN DANGER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 23735/19

  DE GIORGI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 17496/19

  LEVCHUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 10929/19

  LANDI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 34168/11

  MUNTEANU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 20289/10

  UDALOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 64066/19

  P.P. c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.03.2019 - 49089/10

  BALI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 36049/21

  POPESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR - 16158/24 (anhängig)

  DINCĂ v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.05.2025 - 22331/20

  CIONCA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 12471/20

  E.L. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2025 - 9665/23

  C.I.T. AND C.S.T. v. ROMANIA