Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOROSHILOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 21501/02

  In particular, it is not competent to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by domestic courts except where it considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of any rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 21501/02

  The Court reiterates that "where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's 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 Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2005 - 21501/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order, where there is an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 14.09.2006 - 30651/05

  KHOLODOVY v. RUSSIA

  Likewise, the alleged failure to ensure identification and punishment of those responsible cannot be said to have constituted a continuous situation since the Court is unable to conclude that such an obligation existed (see Voroshilov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21501/02, 8 December 2005).