Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PREDICA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 42344/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

  They should not be hierarchically or institutionally subordinate to them but independent in practice (see, among many others, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 112, ECHR 2001-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 70).

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII; Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006; and Cobzaru, cited above, § 111).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be reimbursed under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII; Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006; and Cobzaru, cited above, § 111).

 
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  The applicant's complaints to the domestic authorities in this regard were based on the same evidence and were therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  Consequently, where an individual is taken into custody in good health but later dies, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the events leading to his death (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman cited above, § 97) and to produce evidence casting doubt on the veracity of the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations are backed up by medical reports (Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 43, 2 November 2004).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  The Government further submitted that, contrary to the proceedings carried out by the Turkish authorities in the case of Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), the Romanian judicial authorities had taken all the necessary measures in order to establish the facts and the law applicable.
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  In particular, when a detainee dies in suspicious circumstances, an "official and effective investigation" capable of establishing the causes of death and identifying and punishing those responsible must be carried out of the authorities" own motion (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 74, ECHR 2002-II and the more recent case of Tsintsabadze v. Georgia, no. 35403/06, § 85, 15 February 2011).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2002-IV, and Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 109, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 42344/07

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 89, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 35403/06

  TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE