Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.M.D. v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  D.M.D. v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  The Court refers to the general principles articulated in its case-law, and in particular in its judgment in the case of Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015), where it explained under what circumstances the domestic court's appreciation of the facts of a particular case may be considered to be "arbitrary".

  Thus, the present case cannot be compared to two cases referred to in the present judgment, namely Anđelkovic v. Serbia (no. 1401/08, 9 April 2013), where the court's explicit reasoning on the subject-matter of the case "was based on what appears to be an abstract assertion quite outside of any reasonable judicial discretion", or to Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015), where the Supreme Court of Ukraine deliberately misinterpreted this Court's judgment.

• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 26692/05

  C.A.S. AND C.S. v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  In such cases, Article 3 requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see M.C., cited above, § 151; C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, § 69, 20 March 2012; and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 98-99, 17 December 2009).

  Concerning children or other vulnerable individuals, the Court stated as follows in M. and M. v. Croatia (no. 10161/13, § 136, ECHR 2015 (extracts); see also, mutatis mutandis, C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, §§ 68-70 and 82, 20 March 2012, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V):.

• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  Regard being had to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum claimed for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts, that is, EUR 1, 326.69. It also considers it reasonable to award the sum claimed for the representation of the applicant before it, namely EUR 3, 197.50, less the sum already received under this head in legal aid (EUR 850), making a total of EUR 2, 347.50, to be paid directly into the bank account of the applicant's representative (see, mutatis mutandis, Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 219, ECHR 2013).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  For example, a State has an obligation to provide a vulnerable victim of torture with free legal assistance in order to ensure his or her effective participation in the relevant domestic proceedings, but this is an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention and not under Article 6 (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 119, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 65158/09

  DRAGAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  In line with its consistent case-law (see, notably, Serban Marinescu v. Romania, no. 68842/13, §§ 78-80, 15 December 2015, and Dragan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 99-102, 2 February 2016), the Court rejects the claim made by the APADOR-CH, as this association did not represent the applicant in the current proceedings.
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  Having regard to the finding that a breach of the procedural aspect of Article 3 occurred notably because of the length of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 52 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint concerning the alleged violation of the "reasonable time" requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 171, 1 July 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).].
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  Having regard to the finding that a breach of the procedural aspect of Article 3 occurred notably because of the length of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 52 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaint concerning the alleged violation of the "reasonable time" requirement enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Dimitrov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 77938/11, § 171, 1 July 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).].
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  In line with its consistent case-law (see, notably, Serban Marinescu v. Romania, no. 68842/13, §§ 78-80, 15 December 2015, and Dragan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 99-102, 2 February 2016), the Court rejects the claim made by the APADOR-CH, as this association did not represent the applicant in the current proceedings.
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  The Court reiterates at the outset that 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 is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, for example, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 86, ECHR 2015; M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, § 131, 3 September 2015; A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 20, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; and Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  Children and other vulnerable individuals, in particular, are entitled to State protection, in the form of effective deterrence, against such serious breaches of personal integrity (see, for example, A. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 22, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 159, ECHR 2009, as well as the Council of Europe Recommendation on integrated national strategies for the protection of children from violence, cited in paragraph 103 above).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 17253/07

  DIMITAR SHOPOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 34529/10

  GUTSANOVI c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 6406/21

  M.G. v. LITHUANIA

  Moreover, R.V. had been ordered to pay EUR 6, 000 to the applicant as compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see paragraph 42 above), so the present case had to be contrasted with those cases in which the Court had found that the length of the proceedings had precluded the applicants from obtaining redress (for example, D.M.D. v. Romania, no. 23022/13, §§ 47-48, 3 October 2017, and Vasil Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 81260/12, § 47, 16 June 2015).

  Nor has the Court called into question the amount awarded to the applicant in compensation (compare D.M.D. v. Romania, no. 23022/13, 3 October 2017, where no compensation was awarded to the victim).

• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 15343/15

  ASSOCIATION INNOCENCE EN DANGER ET ASSOCIATION ENFANCE ET PARTAGE c. FRANCE

  Ces dispositions doivent permettre une protection efficace, notamment des enfants et autres personnes vulnérables, et inclure des mesures raisonnables pour empêcher des mauvais traitements dont les autorités avaient ou auraient dû avoir connaissance (voir, mutatis mutandis, Z et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29392/95, § 73, CEDH 2001-V; E. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 33218/96, § 88, 26 novembre 2002; M.C. et A.C. c. Roumanie, no 12060/12, §§ 109-110, 12 avril 2016, et D.M.D. c. Roumanie, no 23022/13, §§ 40-41, 3 octobre 2017).

  Si, comme la Cour l'a dit dans l'arrêt D.M.D. c. Roumanie, no 23022/13, § 50, 3 octobre 2017), les enfants doivent « bénéficier d'une protection supérieure, pas moindre, contre les violences ", nous devons être clairs: dès lors que la Cour examine, comme elle l'a fait au paragraphe 160 du présent arrêt, « si, à l'époque des faits, l'État défendeur aurait dû avoir conscience du risque pour M.S. d'être victime de mauvais traitements ", c'est un risque réel pour la vie dont il est question.

• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 34426/20

  T.M.V. v. ROMANIA

  Although she relied on Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention, the Court will examine the complaint under Articles 3 and 8, together (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018; and V.C. v. Italy, no. 54227/14, §§ 83-87, 1 February 2018, D.M.D. v. Romania, no. 23022/13, § 52, 3 October 2017, and C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, § 62, 20 March 2012).
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 59227/12

  LOSTE c. FRANCE

  Ces mesures doivent permettre une protection efficace, notamment des enfants et autres personnes vulnérables, et inclure des mesures raisonnables pour empêcher des mauvais traitements dont les autorités avaient ou auraient dû avoir connaissance (voir, mutatis mutandis, Z et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 29392/95, § 73, CEDH 2001-V, E. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 33218/96, § 88, 26 novembre 2002, M.C. et A.C. c. Roumanie, no 12060/12, §§ 109-110, 12 avril 2016, et D.M.D. c. Roumanie, no 23022/13, §§ 40-41, 3 octobre 2017.
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 18419/13

  HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates at the outset that 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 is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, for example, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 86, ECHR 2015; M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, § 131, 3 September 2015); and D.M.D. v. Romania, no. 23022/13, § 40, 3 October 2017.