Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Remainder inadmissible;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 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  The Contracting Party's procedural obligations under Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention must be enforced irrespective of the eventual outcome of the proceedings and in such a manner as to avoid any actual or potential chilling effect on the applicants or their representatives (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. Assessment of this minimum level 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, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05

  MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  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, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many other authorities, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 23610/03

  MELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  The Court has, however, accepted that compliance by a representative with certain formal requirements might be necessary before obtaining access to a detainee, for instance for security reasons or in order to prevent collusion or perversion of the course of the investigation or justice (see Melnikov v. Russia, no. 23610/03, § 96, 14 January 2010).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  In all cases, however, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure (see Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 134 and 137, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  As to the distribution of the burden of proof, the Court reiterates that where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  In particular, the Court considered that Article 34 of the Convention had been breached where the applicant had been unable to discuss with his representative issues concerning the application before the Court without their being separated by a glass partition (see Cebotari v. Moldova, no. 35615/06, §§ 58-68, 13 November 2007); where the applicant had been unable to communicate with his representative before the Court during his treatment in hospital (see Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 140, ECHR 2008); and where the applicant's contacts with his representative before the Court had been restricted on the grounds that the representative was not a professional advocate and did not belong to any Bar association (see Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, §§ 157-60, 10 June 2010).
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2016 - 81553/12

  By contrast, where the domestic formalities were easy to comply with, no issue arose under Article 34 (see Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 119, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 61239/17

  JABBAROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  10865/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, ECHR 2015; Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, 11 January 2007; Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, 31 July 2014; Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, 4 February 2016; and Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, 21 February 2019).
• EGMR, 09.01.2018 - 70040/13

  VASILE VICTOR STANCIU v. ROMANIA

  While noting that the investigation was not necessarily promptly initiated (see, for instance, Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 92, 4 February 2016), the Court however accepts that the authorities did react to the complaints of the applicant.
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  ERIOMENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle d'emblée qu'un grief tiré de l'article 34 de la Convention revêt un caractère procédural et que, par conséquent, il ne soulève aucune question de recevabilité au regard de la Convention (Cooke c. Autriche, no 25878/94, § 46, 8 février 2000, et Hilal Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 81553/12, § 115, 4 février 2016).