Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NATCHOVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 2 (décès) Violation de l'art. 2 (manquement à conduire une enquête effective) Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 14+2 (allégation d'un acte de violence raciale) Violation de l'art. 14+2 (absence ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NACHOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (deaths) Violation of Art. 2 (failure to conduct an effective investigation) No separate issue under Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14+2 (alleged act of racial violence) Violation of Art. 14+2 (failure to investigate possible racist motives) ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Nachova und andere gegen Bulgarien

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.02.2002 - 43577/98
• EGMR, 26.02.2004 - 43577/98
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98 und 43579/98
• EGMR, 05.04.2017 - 43577/98

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among others, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 24, § 32; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1211, § 68; Tanli v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 26, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among others, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 24, § 32; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1211, § 68; Tanli v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 26, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among others, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 64-65, § 161; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 24, § 32; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, p. 1211, § 68; Tanli v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 26, ECHR 2004-VII).

 
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  Compliance with the State's positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention requires that the domestic legal system must demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against those who unlawfully took the life of another, irrespective of the victim's racial or ethnic origin (see Menson and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  The question to be decided in such cases is the level of just satisfaction, which is a matter to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 120, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  Discrimination is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  The Grand Chamber reiterates that in certain circumstances, where the events lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of the death of a person within their control in custody, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of, in particular, the causes of the detained person's death (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  In cases concerning the use of force by State agents, it must take into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place and the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 46, § 150, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43577/98

  In cases concerning the use of force by State agents, it must take into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place and the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 46, § 150, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  En vertu d'une jurisprudence bien établie, il n'est pas rare que la Grande Chambre « invite, dans certains cas où est dénoncée une discrimination, le gouvernement défendeur à réfuter un grief défendable de discrimination et, s'il ne le fait pas, [à] conclure à la violation de l'article 14 de la Convention'(voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Nachova et autres c. Bulgarie [GC], 6 juillet 2005, no 43577/98 et 43579/98, § 157, CEDH 2005-VII, et plus récemment, D.H. et autres c. République tchèque [GC], 13 novembre 2007, no 57325/00, § 179, CEDH 2007-IV).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 57325/00

  D.H. ET AUTRES c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Se référant à la jurisprudence de la Cour (Natchova et autres c. Bulgarie, nos 43577/98 et 43579/98, § 167, CEDH 2004) et d'autres organes internationaux, ils affirment que la discrimination n'exige pas une intention et qu'il n'est pas exclu qu'une mesure puisse être jugée discriminatoire sur la base d'éléments de preuve relatifs à son impact (effets préjudiciables disproportionnés sur un groupe particulier), même si elle ne vise pas spécifiquement ce groupe.