Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68199
EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,68199)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.10.2009 - 66688/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,68199)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. Oktober 2009 - 66688/01 (https://dejure.org/2009,68199)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68199) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TOPORKOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01
    An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01
    To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01
    Consideration is given to the the date of commencement of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

    INDELICATO c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01
    Consideration is given to the the date of commencement of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01
    An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 66688/01
    Where an individual claims to have been injured by ill-treatment in custody, the Government is under an obligation to provide a complete and sufficient explanation as to how the injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
  • EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

    YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA

    - Were the issue of ill-treatment (use of force) and the issue of an effective investigation of the related complaint examined in substance during the applicant's trial and on appeal against the trial judgment? Was the trial court empowered to afford any adequate redress in respect of these two issues? If yes, has the applicant thereby complied with the exhaustion requirement (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 62-67; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 50-52, 24 July 2008; Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 33, 2 October 2008; Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, §§ 43-44, 2 October 2008; Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, §§ 44-50, 30 July 2009; Toporkov v. Russia, no. 66688/01, §§ 28-35, 1 October 2009; and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 107, 13 July 2010)?.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht