Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BANKS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  If they had, issues would have arisen as to whether they could still claim to be victims or had in fact exhausted domestic remedies since six applicants settled the civil claims which they had brought alleging assault by prison officers and systemic negligence on the part of the prison service, while the other two did not bring any such proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  The Court would emphasise that these obligations are not identical (Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 89-93, ECHR 2000-VII), either in content or as regards their applicability.
• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 41894/98

  HAY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  If they had, issues would have arisen as to whether they could still claim to be victims or had in fact exhausted domestic remedies since six applicants settled the civil claims which they had brought alleging assault by prison officers and systemic negligence on the part of the prison service, while the other two did not bring any such proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 41894/98, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  Second, where the allegations are not of intentional violence as such but raise issues of negligence, a civil or disciplinary remedy may be sufficient to provide protection under Article 2 (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, in which there was no procedural breach where a prosecution for homicide in respect of the death of baby in hospital was time-barred as it was still possible to obtain findings of responsibility or fault by the doctor in civil proceedings; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 90, ECHR 2002-VIII, where it was sufficient that the applicant had the opportunity of suing the State for negligence in releasing from prison two men who murdered his son; and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-VIII, where Article 2 was satisfied by the availability of civil proceedings in respect of apparent fault of a doctor and hospital where a pregnant woman lost her child due to a mistaken intervention; see also Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XII, which held that where it is established that the negligence attributable to State officials or bodies goes beyond an error of judgment or carelessness, in that the authorities in question, fully realising the likely consequences and disregarding the powers vested in them, failed to take measures that were necessary and sufficient to avert the risks inherent in a dangerous activity, the fact that those responsible for endangering life have not been charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted may amount to a violation of Article 2, irrespective of any other types of remedy which individuals may exercise on their own initiative).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  Second, where the allegations are not of intentional violence as such but raise issues of negligence, a civil or disciplinary remedy may be sufficient to provide protection under Article 2 (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, in which there was no procedural breach where a prosecution for homicide in respect of the death of baby in hospital was time-barred as it was still possible to obtain findings of responsibility or fault by the doctor in civil proceedings; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 90, ECHR 2002-VIII, where it was sufficient that the applicant had the opportunity of suing the State for negligence in releasing from prison two men who murdered his son; and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-VIII, where Article 2 was satisfied by the availability of civil proceedings in respect of apparent fault of a doctor and hospital where a pregnant woman lost her child due to a mistaken intervention; see also Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XII, which held that where it is established that the negligence attributable to State officials or bodies goes beyond an error of judgment or carelessness, in that the authorities in question, fully realising the likely consequences and disregarding the powers vested in them, failed to take measures that were necessary and sufficient to avert the risks inherent in a dangerous activity, the fact that those responsible for endangering life have not been charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted may amount to a violation of Article 2, irrespective of any other types of remedy which individuals may exercise on their own initiative).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  First, in the normal course of events, a criminal trial, with an adversarial procedure before an independent and impartial judge, must be regarded as furnishing the strongest safeguards of an effective procedure for the finding of facts and the attribution of criminal responsibility for unlawful acts of violence (McKerr, cited above, § 134 see also Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V where the ability of the State to enforce the criminal law against those who unlawfully took the life of another was described as decisive when deciding whether the authorities complied with their positive and procedural obligations under Article 2).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  Second, where the allegations are not of intentional violence as such but raise issues of negligence, a civil or disciplinary remedy may be sufficient to provide protection under Article 2 (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, in which there was no procedural breach where a prosecution for homicide in respect of the death of baby in hospital was time-barred as it was still possible to obtain findings of responsibility or fault by the doctor in civil proceedings; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 90, ECHR 2002-VIII, where it was sufficient that the applicant had the opportunity of suing the State for negligence in releasing from prison two men who murdered his son; and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 91, ECHR 2004-VIII, where Article 2 was satisfied by the availability of civil proceedings in respect of apparent fault of a doctor and hospital where a pregnant woman lost her child due to a mistaken intervention; see also Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XII, which held that where it is established that the negligence attributable to State officials or bodies goes beyond an error of judgment or carelessness, in that the authorities in question, fully realising the likely consequences and disregarding the powers vested in them, failed to take measures that were necessary and sufficient to avert the risks inherent in a dangerous activity, the fact that those responsible for endangering life have not been charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted may amount to a violation of Article 2, irrespective of any other types of remedy which individuals may exercise on their own initiative).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  The procedural limb of Article 3 principally comes into play where the Court is unable to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, deriving, at least in part, from the failure of the authorities to react effectively to such complaints at the relevant time (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 178, 24 February 2005 Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], cited above, §§ 89- 92).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  The procedural limb of Article 3 principally comes into play where the Court is unable to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, deriving, at least in part, from the failure of the authorities to react effectively to such complaints at the relevant time (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 178, 24 February 2005 Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], cited above, §§ 89- 92).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA

  However, it would emphasise that this obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that the investigative duty, which has been implied in varying contexts under the Convention, may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see, for example, Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 6194/06

  ZAHARIEVA v. BULGARIA

  In as much as the applicant alleged that the proceedings did not resolve the wider problems relating to the supply of anti-cancer medicines in Bulgaria, the Court, while by no means wishing to minimise the importance of that issue, does not consider that it falls to be examined by reference to the applicant's rights under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).

 
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  CESNULEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  However, it would emphasise that this obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 39953/07

  BAILEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court recalls that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § §§ 90 and 94-95, ECHR 2002-VIII; Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 92, ECHR 2004 XII; and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 11167/12

  BAKANOVA v. LITHUANIA

  However, it would emphasise that this obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 44862/04

  DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  However, it would emphasise that that obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007, and, mutatis mutandis, Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 69, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 34137/03

  GEORGI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  However, it would emphasise that that obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007, and, mutatis mutandis, Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 69, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 19406/05

  ZASHEVI v. BULGARIA

  While that obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007, and, mutatis mutandis, Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 69, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)), any such investigation must comply with certain minimum requirements which have recently been set out, with reference to deaths not involving State action, in paragraphs 192-94 of the Court's judgment in the case of Kolevi (cited above).