Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALMASI v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALMASI v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  The approach adopted by the national appellate courts and now endorsed by the Court renders the protection afforded by the Convention to those suspected of crime "theoretical or illusory" rather than "practical and effective" (contrast Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  As the Court has already held in its previous judgments, the right set out in Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention is one element, among others, of the concept of a fair trial in criminal proceedings contained in Article 6 § 1 (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, §§ 36-37, Series A no. 275; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, ECHR 2008; Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 76, ECHR 2015; and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, § 121, 9 November 2018).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  It is necessarily subject to certain limitations where free legal aid is concerned and also where it is for the courts to decide whether the interests of justice require that the accused be defended by counsel appointed by them (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, § 29, Series A no. 237-B).

 
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 38740/09

  MEHMET DUMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  An investigation of this kind would be necessary even in the absence of a complaint involving Article 3 of the Convention, such as that in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis and among other authorities, Mehmet Duman v. Turkey, no. 38740/09, § 42, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  The Court reiterates that where a person raises an arguable claim or makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of State agents, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 124, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  While the degree of public scrutiny required may vary, the complainant must be afforded effective access to the investigatory procedure in all cases (see Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 137, ECHR 2004-IV, and Krsmanovic v. Serbia, no. 19796/14, § 74, 19 December 2017).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  The requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, and Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 115, Series A no. 241-A).
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports, 1998-IV; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 84, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  According to the Court's settled case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 88, ECHR 2010; Price v. the United Kingdom, no..33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19796/14

  KRSMANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that where a person raises an arguable claim or makes a credible assertion that he or she has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of State agents, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII; Labita, cited above, § 131; Bouyid, cited above, § 124; and Almasi v. Serbia, no. 21388/15, § 60, 8 October 2019).

  50541/08 and 3 others, § 254, 13 September 2016; and Almasi v. Serbia, no. 21388/15, § 101, 8 October 2019).

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court reiterates that where a person raises an arguable claim or makes a credible assertion that he or she has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of State agents, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 124, ECHR 2015; and Almasi v. Serbia, no. 21388/15, § 60, 8 October 2019).