Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 93, Reports 1998-VIII).

  As such, the situation in the present case differs from those cases where injuries are sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Pruneanu v. Moldova, no. 6888/03, § 44, 16 January 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  As such, the situation in the present case differs from those cases where injuries are sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Pruneanu v. Moldova, no. 6888/03, § 44, 16 January 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  It therefore does not appear that the authorities were called upon to react in a completely random and unprepared manner (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII) and should have been able to anticipate any developments and take at least some measures to evaluate and avoid unnecessary risks and to refrain from applying force in an indiscriminate and disorderly manner.
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  Nevertheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 283-84, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  Taking into account the fact that these witnesses testified before the domestic authorities several months after the incident, the Court notes that the passage of time inevitably takes a toll on a witness's capacity to recall events with great detail and accuracy (compare with Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 116, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  The Court also notes that, as in cases under Article 2 of the Convention, whatever mode or form of investigation is employed at the domestic level in respect of Article 3 complaints, once the matter has come to the attention of the authorities, they must act of their own motion and cannot leave it to the applicant to take responsibility for the conduct of investigatory procedure (see, mutatis mutatis, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 175, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

  MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  As such, the situation in the present case differs from those cases where injuries are sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Pruneanu v. Moldova, no. 6888/03, § 44, 16 January 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 6888/03

  PRUNEANU v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07

  V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

  A cet égard, la présente espèce se distingue des autres affaires où la Cour a dit que les autorités internes devaient engager une enquête pénale de leur propre initiative une fois la question portée à leur attention (voir, par exemple, Mouradova c. Azerbaïdjan, no 22684/05, § 123, 2 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

  GJINI v. SERBIA

  In previous cases, such an obligation has arisen on the basis of various explicit or implicit indications, such as: facts implied in complaints made by an applicant during criminal proceedings against him (see J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73-75, 17 April 2012); a letter from an applicant to a county court in relation to civil proceedings concerning his involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital (see M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), cited above, §§ 82-83); the presentation of evidence of ill-treatment by an applicant in civil proceedings (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 122-126, 2 April 2009); and an allegation of ill-treatment in an applicant's appeal against a first-instance judgment and in his constitutional complaint (see MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, §§ 88-89, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 100, 2 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  BORIS KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA

  However, it is settled case-law that such force will not be in breach of this Article only if it was indispensable and not excessive (see, in general, Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007, with further references, and, in relation specifically to the use of force to quell mass unrest, Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 109, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 10443/12

  GEYLANI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKIYE

  As to the burden of proof in relation to alleged ill-treatment inflicted in the context of the policing of a demonstration, the Court has found in previous cases that the applicants were required to make a prima facie case that their injuries had resulted from the use of force by the police before the burden could be shifted to the Government to refute those allegations (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 107-08, 2 April 2009, and Zakharov and Varzhabetyan v. Russia, nos. 35880/14 and 75926/17, § 63, 13 October 2020).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 31805/06

  RIZVANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Nevertheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 99, 2 April 2009, and Avsar, cited above, §§ 283-84).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 100, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 18911/17

  A.E. AND T.B. v. ITALY

  The applicant thus made a prima facie case that his injuries had resulted from the use of force by the police (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 107-08, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 32897/16

  LOPEZ MARTINEZ c. ESPAGNE

  Elle a déjà eu l'occasion de souligner la nécessité de réaliser une enquête approfondie sur les origines et circonstances de tels affrontements pour renforcer l'efficacité de l'enquête relative à toute plainte individuelle introduite pour mauvais traitements et permettre d'examiner le caractère proportionné de l'utilisation de la force par les agents publics (Mouradova c. Azerbaïdjan, no 22684/05, §§ 113-114, 2 avril 2009, Hristovi c. Bulgarie, no 42697/05, § 81, 11 octobre 2011).
• EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Nevertheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Avsar, cited above, §§ 283-84, and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 99, 2 April 2009).
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 59135/09

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.04.2014 - 22062/07

  LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 2594/07

  NAJAFLI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06

  ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

  UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

  IGBAL HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 46903/07

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 47137/07

  TAHIROVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 28847/08

  GLADOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 42119/12

  MUSTAFA HAJILI v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 02.12.2014 - 58904/08

  GAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 50700/07

  KURALIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 75926/17 (anhängig)

  VARZHABETYAN v. RUSSIA