Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15579/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55801) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SAMBOR v. POLAND
Art. 3 MRK
No violation of Art. 3 (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15579/05
The Court also points out that where an individual when taken into police custody is 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, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 42066/98
BURSUC c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15579/05
Where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 80, 12 October 2004). - EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98
MATKO v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15579/05
The burden rests on the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force which resulted in the applicant's injuries was not excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 104, 2 November 2006. - EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15579/05
The Court also points out that where an individual when taken into police custody is 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, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
- EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07
V.C. v. SLOVAKIA
Le traitement infligé à une personne par des agents de l'Etat est considéré comme soulevant une question sous l'angle de l'article 3 lorsqu'il conduit à un dommage corporel d'une certaine gravité, par exemple une blessure à la jambe conduisant à une nécrose puis à l'amputation, une blessure par balle au genou, une double fracture de la mâchoire et des contusions au visage ou une blessure au visage - avec trois dents cassées - nécessitant des points de suture (Sambor c. Pologne, no 15579/05, § 36, 1er février 2011, Necdet Bulut c. Turquie, no 77092/01, § 24, 20 novembre 2007, Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, §§ 76-77, CEDH 2000-XII, et Mrozowski c. Pologne, no 9258/04, § 28, 12 mai 2009).