Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  The Court reiterates that "where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, pp. 25-26, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 120, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)), the Court concludes that, taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity (see, for example, §§ 6 and 7 above), the ill-treatment at issue amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.

 
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 120, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)), the Court concludes that, taken as a whole and having regard to its purpose and severity (see, for example, §§ 6 and 7 above), the ill-treatment at issue amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  Having regard to the grounds on which it has found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3, the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention (see Jasar, cited above, § 62; Kazakova v. Bulgaria, no. 55061/00, § 70, 22 June 2006; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-13, 24 February 2005, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 55061/00

  KAZAKOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  Having regard to the grounds on which it has found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3, the Court considers that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention (see Jasar, cited above, § 62; Kazakova v. Bulgaria, no. 55061/00, § 70, 22 June 2006; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  The Court reiterates that "where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, pp. 25-26, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and also Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 52, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, § 53, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06

  SADRETDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 12008/06

  ALEKSEY BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  Par conséquent, lorsqu'un individu est placé en garde à vue alors qu'il se trouve en bonne santé et que l'on constate qu'il est blessé au moment de sa libération, il incombe à l'État de fournir une explication plausible sur l'origine des blessures (Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 87, CEDH 1999-V, et Oleg Nikitine c. Russie, no 36410/02, § 44, 9 octobre 2008).

 
• EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

  MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 22362/06

  CUCU v. ROMANIA

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Gladyshev, cited above, § 52; Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008; and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

  ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Les nécessités de l'enquête et les indéniables difficultés de la lutte contre la criminalité ne sauraient conduire à limiter la protection due à l'intégrité physique de la personne (Ribitsch, précité, §§ 38-40, et Oleg Nikitine c. Russie, no 36410/02, § 46, 9 octobre 2008).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008).
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 43083/06

  ZOLOTAREV c. RUSSIE

  Par conséquent, lorsqu'un individu est placé en garde à vue alors qu'il se trouve en bonne santé et que l'on constate qu'il est blessé au moment de sa libération, il incombe à l'État de fournir une explication plausible sur l'origine des blessures (Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 87, CEDH 1999-V, et Oleg Nikitine c. Russie, no 36410/02, § 44, 9 octobre 2008).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 21062/07

  IGOSHIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 27217/06

  ZINOVCHIK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 22485/05

  FILATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38047/04

  SHUVALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 23559/07

  OLEYNIK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05

  ALCHAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 3937/03

  KONDRATISHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24421/11

  KARAKHANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 33469/06

  KHISMATULLIN v. RUSSIA