Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CESNULEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2-1 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2-1 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Cesnulevicius v. Lithuania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06
• EGMR, 03.10.2018 - 13462/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12489/86

  Windisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  The subsequent use of their statements by a trial court to found a conviction is, however, capable of raising issues under the Convention (see Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1989, § 44, Series A no. 166, and Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 30, Series A no. 186).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  The subsequent use of their statements by a trial court to found a conviction is, however, capable of raising issues under the Convention (see Kostovski v. the Netherlands, 20 November 1989, § 44, Series A no. 166, and Windisch v. Austria, 27 September 1990, § 30, Series A no. 186).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  It falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 1999-V, and Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 35-37, 15 January 2009).

 
• EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 33747/96

  BROMILEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  A positive obligation will arise where it has been established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; and Bromiley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33747/96, 23 November 1999).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  In the context of prisoners, the Court has had previous occasion to emphasise that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  Whatever mode is employed, the authorities must act of their own motion once the matter has come to their attention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  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 (Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  This involves a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  BANKS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  However, it would emphasise that this obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

  BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  It falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 1999-V, and Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 35-37, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI