Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.R. AND R.D. v. SLOVAKIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  R.R. AND R.D. v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  In these circumstances, and taking into account the material in its possession as well as the applicable standard of proof (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII, with further references), the Court is unable to take a position on whether racist attitudes played a role in the planning of the operation of 19 June 2013.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  There can be no doubt that the complaints under those provisions were arguable for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  BORIS KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.2006 - 9210/02

  BALAZ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  In that connection, they relied on the Court's decisions in Furdík v. Slovakia (no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008) and Baláz and Others v. Slovakia (no. 9210/02, 28 November 2006) and the judgments in V.C. v. Slovakia (no. 18968/07, §§ 125-9, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and N.B. v. Slovakia (no. 29518/10, §§ 84-8, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  While the ill-treatment that produced them cannot be qualified as torture (contrast Cestaro v. Italy, no. 6884/11, 7 April 2015, with further references), it was serious enough to be considered inhuman (see, for example, Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, §§ 77-9, ECHR 2000 XII, and Rehbock, cited above §§ 71-8).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29518/10

  N.B. v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  In that connection, they relied on the Court's decisions in Furdík v. Slovakia (no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008) and Baláz and Others v. Slovakia (no. 9210/02, 28 November 2006) and the judgments in V.C. v. Slovakia (no. 18968/07, §§ 125-9, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and N.B. v. Slovakia (no. 29518/10, §§ 84-8, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05

  FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 20649/18

  In that connection, they relied on the Court's decisions in Furdík v. Slovakia (no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008) and Baláz and Others v. Slovakia (no. 9210/02, 28 November 2006) and the judgments in V.C. v. Slovakia (no. 18968/07, §§ 125-9, ECHR 2011 (extracts)) and N.B. v. Slovakia (no. 29518/10, §§ 84-8, 12 June 2012).

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 57085/18

  T.K. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  "...given the similarity of the issues raised by the applicants in this case pending before the European Court of Human Rights with those obtaining in the case of R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia (no. 20649/18, 1 September 2020) and the fact that any general measures to be taken for the implementation of the judgement in the said case are also relevant to the facts forming the basis of the present application, the Government of the Slovak Republic [would] pay ex gratia with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the present case.
• EGMR, 16.06.2022 - 44153/15

  SKORUPA v. POLAND

  By doing so, the authorities disregarded their duty to protect persons who, like the applicant, are under the control of the police and in a situation of vulnerability (see, mutatis mutandis, Bouyid, cited above, § 107 and R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, no. 20649/18, § 160, 1 September 2020).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 31975/19

  KOVÁCOVÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  The present case is to be distinguished from those involving police operations classified as "action 100" (see R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, no. 20649/18, §§ 6-8, 12 and 152-60, 1 September 2020).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 15741/15

  SLÁDKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Proceedings that can only result in the award of compensation to be paid by the State, but not in the punishment of those responsible for the ill-treatment, cannot be considered to satisfy the procedural requirement of Article 3 in cases of wilful ill-treatment of persons who are within the control of agents of the State (see, for example, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 227, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia, no. 20649/18, § 127, 1 September 2020).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 14099/18

  M.H. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  The parties also note that the present application raises similar questions as the case of R.R. and R.D. v. Slovakia (no. 20649/18), in which the Court's judgment of 1 September 2020 is being implemented.