Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 38 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Amadayev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  A positive obligation on the State to provide protection against inhuman or degrading treatment has been found to arise in a number of cases (see A. v. the United Kingdom, § 22, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 73; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 149, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  Thus, it has been found that for the Court to find a violation of this aspect, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 6477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  SHERSTOBITOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 13624/03

  KOKY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  As to the effective application of the existing legal framework once the ill-treatment has already occurred, even though the scope of the State's procedural obligations might differ between cases where treatment contrary to Article 3 has been inflicted through the involvement of State agents and cases where violence has been inflicted by private individuals, the requirements as to an official investigation are similar (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009, and Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, § 215, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 13178/03

  MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  As to the State's positive obligation to prevent ill-treatment, the applicant was of the opinion that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to him from the criminal acts of third parties and that they had failed to take reasonable and effective measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (he referred to the judgments of Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V; Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 53, ECHR 2006-XI; and Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 96, 3 May 2007).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  Thus, it has been found that for the Court to find a violation of this aspect, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 6477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51534/08

  GAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and 73784/10, § 388, 10 October 2013).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  As to the effective application of the existing legal framework once the ill-treatment has already occurred, even though the scope of the State's procedural obligations might differ between cases where treatment contrary to Article 3 has been inflicted through the involvement of State agents and cases where violence has been inflicted by private individuals, the requirements as to an official investigation are similar (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009, and Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, § 215, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  The Court reiterates that the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, including such treatment administered by private individuals (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 50 and 51, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 71545/12

  L.E. c. GRÈCE

  En deuxième lieu, dans certaines circonstances, l'État se trouve devant l'obligation de prendre des mesures concrètes pour protéger les victimes avérées ou potentielles de traitements contraires à l'article 4. Comme les articles 2 et 3 de la Convention, l'article 4 peut, dans certaines circonstances, imposer à l'État ce type d'obligation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Giuliani et Gaggio c. Italie [GC], no 23458/02, § 244, CEDH 2011 (extraits); Osman c. Royaume-Uni, 28 octobre 1998, § 115, Recueil 1998-VIII, Amadayev c. Russie, no 18114/06, § 68, 3 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13

  SABALIC v. CROATIA

  Compliance with the State's positive obligations requires that the domestic legal system must demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against the perpetrators of such violent acts (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, § 239, 12 June 2012; and Amadayev v. Russia, no. 18114/06, § 81, 3 July 2014).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 15529/12

  BALÁZS v. HUNGARY

  The Court also reiterates the particular requirement for an investigation into an attack with racial overtones to be pursued with vigour and impartiality, having regard to the need to continuously reassert society's condemnation of racism in order to maintain the confidence of minorities in the ability of the authorities to protect them from the threat of racist violence (see Amadayev v. Russia, no. 18114/06, § 81, 3 July 2014).

 
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 81260/12

  VASIL HRISTOV v. BULGARIA

  In addition, any such investigation should be prompt (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others, cited above, § 97, and Amadayev v. Russia, no. 18114/06, § 70, 3 July 2014).
• EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 33470/18

  KREYNDLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 56-60 above, and given, in particular, that the issue of the alleged failure to identify the participants of the episode of 8 September 2016 partially overlaps with the complaint about ineffective investigation into the subsequent attack on the applicants, the Court does not find it necessary to decide whether prior to the incident the authorities ought to have been aware of the real and imminent danger to the applicants (see Amadayev v. Russia, no. 18114/06, § 84, 3 July 2014).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40125/20

  S.T. AND Y.B. v. RUSSIA

  A summary of the relevant principles on the procedural obligation under Article 3 can be found, respectively, in Amadayev v. Russia, no. 18114/06, §§ 68-72, 3 July 2014, and Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-23, ECHR 2015.