Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OTASEVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Otasevic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  The Court reiterates that where a person makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention at the hands of State officials, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention, requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  In this connection they emphasised that, unlike in Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, the Serbian authorities had heard not only the accused officers but also the applicant, a medical expert and several eye witnesses.
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  The authorities must take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of victims and the fact that people who have been subjected to serious ill-treatment will often be less ready or willing to make a complaint (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 133, ECHR 2004-IV, and the authorities cited therein).

 
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  The authorities must take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of victims and the fact that people who have been subjected to serious ill-treatment will often be less ready or willing to make a complaint (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 133, ECHR 2004-IV, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 42066/98

  BURSUC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  However, those statements were taken by the unit which had been involved in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant and which therefore lacked independence (see, by analogy, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 335, ECHR 2007-II, concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2; Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 104, 12 October 2004, concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 3; and the CPT standards, document no. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2011, p. 97).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  There are therefore no indications that the investigating judge was prepared to scrutinise the police's account of the incident (see Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 90, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 4704/04

  PALIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  It is nevertheless the case that the Court is only competent ratione temporis to look at the period after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Serbia on 3 March 2004, while taking into consideration the state of the case at that date (compare Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, § 70, 15 February 2011).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  However, the threshold is lower in the case of an arguable claim that injuries have been inflicted upon a detained person by State officials: the Court has held that, in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Rivas v. France, no. 59584/00, § 37, 1 April 2004; and Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 55, 19 May 2004).

• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19796/14

  KRSMANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Throughout the Court's case-law, that obligation has evolved into a separate and autonomous duty, capable of binding the State even when the death or ill-treatment took place before ratification (see Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 159, 9 April 2009; Stanimirovic, cited above, §§ 28-29; and Otasevic v. Serbia, no. 32198/07, § 24, 5 February 2013).