Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 14+9, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Begheluri and Others v. Georgia

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 28490/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (34)

• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  The manifestation of religious belief may take the form of worship, teaching, practice and observance (see Kokkinakis, cited above, § 31, and Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 105, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practice or not to practice a religion (see, among other authorities, Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 31, Series A no. 260-A, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 124, 1 July 2014, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  As to the burden of proof in this sphere, the Court has established that once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (see, among other authorities, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95, and 28443/95, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 57, ECHR 2005-XII).

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  In this connection the Court must first establish whether the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk of the attack on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 131, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  As to the burden of proof in this sphere, the Court has established that once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (see, among other authorities, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95, and 28443/95, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 57, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  The Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, § 37, ECHR 2000-X; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; and Eweida and Others, cited above, § 88).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

  HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  As indicated previously, it also considers that the State's duty of neutrality and impartiality is incompatible with any power on the State's part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the ways in which those beliefs are expressed (see Manoussakis and Others v. Greece, 26 September 1996, § 47, Reports 1996-IV; Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 78, ECHR 2000-XI; Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.09.2011 - 28955/06

  PALOMO SÁNCHEZ ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, §§ 58-61, ECHR 2011; Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 25 November 1994, Series A no. 295 § 47; and Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  The Government have not challenged the factual claims submitted by those applicants, which, in the Court's opinion, constitute sufficiently strong evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that those applicants were subjected to physical violence (see, mutatis mutandis, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 111, ECHR 2002-IV, and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 338, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  As to the applicants" request as outlined in paragraph 183 above, the Court points out that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress the effects in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
• EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 12884/87

  ORTENBERG c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

  PANTEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 76900/01

  ÖLLINGER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 39339/98

  Einschaltung von Privaten / Privatpersonen in die Strafverfolgung …
• EGMR, 06.01.2005 - 58641/00

  HOOGENDIJK v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 74989/01

  OURANIO TOXO AND OTHERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 07.03.2006 - 74644/01

  DONADZÉ c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 41526/10

  DORDEVIC c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 26827/08

  ABDU c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA
• EKMR, 14.12.1973 - 4403/70
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 13624/03

  KOKY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 19634/07

  DVALISHVILI v. GEORGIA

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  BEIZARAS AND LEVICKAS v. LITHUANIA

  As to the burden of proof regarding discrimination, the Court has established that once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (see Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 172, 7 October 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 36046/15

  MIGORYANU AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF THE CITY OF IZMAIL v. …

  Neither did it involve State agents failing to intervene to protect the applicant from attack (contrast Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, §§ 104 and 118-21, 7 October 2014).
• EGMR, 01.10.2020 - 3503/10

  HAJI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Accordingly, the police officers failed to prevent or stop the ill-treatment of the seventh applicant and the agents of SOCAR, even if not representing the State themselves, acted with the State's acquiescence or connivance, which makes the State directly responsible for the treatment complained of (see Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, § 81, ECHR 2001-IV; Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 145, 7 October 2014; and Chernega and Others, cited above, §§ 125-131).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 65969/09

  TSAGURIA v. GEORGIA

  It recalls that it has already established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia, its practice concerning complaints about the allegations of ill-treatment by the police and lack of adequate investigation in that respect (see, for example, Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, §§ 105-112, 7 October 2014; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, §§ 35-47, 27 July 2006) as well as about the fairness of the administrative proceedings launched as a means of interference with the right to hold a peaceful demonstration, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 and Article 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 1484/07, §§ 84-93, 2 October 2012; Osmani and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; and Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, §§ 100-102, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 28297/10

  BERIDZE v. GEORGIA

  It recalls that it has already established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia, its practice concerning complaints about the allegations of ill-treatment by the police and lack of adequate investigation in that respect (see, for example, Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, §§ 105-112, 7 October 2014; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, §§ 35-47, 27 July 2006) as well as interference with the right to hold a peaceful demonstration, in breach of Article 11 of the Convention (see, for example, Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 1484/07, §§ 84-93, 2 October 2012; Osmani and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; and Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, §§ 100-102, 15 November 2007).