Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55389
EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55389)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10.02.2011 - 44973/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55389)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 10. Februar 2011 - 44973/04 (https://dejure.org/2011,55389)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55389) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PREMININY v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (25)

  • EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

    MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    It follows that the material in the case file does not provide an evidential basis sufficient to enable the Court to find "beyond reasonable doubt" that the first applicant was subjected to the alleged ill-treatment on 14 June 2002 (see, for similar reasoning, Gusev v. Russia (dec.), no. 67542/01, 9 November 2006; Toporkov v. Russia, no. 66688/01, §§ 43-45, 1 October 2009; and, most recently, Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, §§ 97-99, 18 March 2010).

    However, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for establishing the truth in cases of brutality committed by State officials, were conducted by the same State authority whose employees were allegedly implicated in the events which were to be investigated (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009, and Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, § 87, 18 March 2010).

  • EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

    KISMIR v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirements of promptness, thoroughness and effectiveness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005; Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-IX; and Vladimir Fedorov, cited above, § 70).
  • EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

    MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    The Court considers that the period under examination cannot be considered compatible with the "speediness" requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that its entire duration was attributable to the authorities (see, for example, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 198 and 203; and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2000-XII, where review proceedings which lasted twenty-three days were not "speedy").
  • EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36220/02

    BARABANSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    A conclusion indicating the degree of support for the allegations of ill-treatment should be based on a discussion of different possible diagnoses (injuries not relating to ill-treatment including self-inflicted injuries and diseases) (see Barabanshchikov v. Russia, no. 36220/02, § 59, 8 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

    VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    However, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for establishing the truth in cases of brutality committed by State officials, were conducted by the same State authority whose employees were allegedly implicated in the events which were to be investigated (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009, and Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, § 87, 18 March 2010).
  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    In this connection the Court reiterates its finding made on a number of occasions that the investigation should be carried out by competent, qualified and impartial experts who are independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 325, ECHR 2007-..., and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

    AKKOC v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    The forensic doctor must enjoy formal and de facto independence, have been provided with specialised training and have a mandate which is broad in scope (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 55 and § 118, ECHR 2000-X).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    Consideration has been given to the opening of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV) and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    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).
  • EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

    KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
    It imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not only to refrain from provoking ill-treatment, but also to take the necessary preventive measures to preserve the physical and psychological integrity and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

    INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

    PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

    M.C. c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

    MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires

  • EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

    CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

    DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

    GJINI v. SERBIA

    In such circumstances, the absence of any direct State involvement in acts of violence that meet the condition of severity such as to engage Article 3 of the Convention does not absolve the State from its obligations under this provision (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 71, 10 February 2011).

    Unfortunately, this aspect of the issue is absent from the majority's analysis, in disregard of the Court's case-law on the subject (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 87, 10 February 2011, and Rodic and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 22893/05, §§ 69-71, 27 May 2008).

  • EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

    CEESAY v. AUSTRIA

    Furthermore the Court has emphasised that the positive obligation to protect persons in custody must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, in the context of Article 3, Pantea v. Romania, nï‚° 33343/96, § 189, 3 June 2003; Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012; in the context of Article 2 see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447/09, §§ 71-72, 19 July 2012, with further references).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 76680/17

    D v. LATVIA

    In the context of deprivation of liberty, the Court has consistently stressed that Article 3 imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not only to refrain from provoking ill-treatment but also to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure the physical and psychological integrity and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 36463/11

    S.P. ANS OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    In the context of deprivation of liberty, the Court has consistently stressed that Article 3 imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not only to refrain from provoking ill-treatment, but also to take the necessary preventive measures to ensure the physical and psychological integrity and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

    KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Observing the suspects", witnesses" and victims" demeanour during questioning and assessing the probative value of their testimony forms a substantial part of the investigative process (see Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 109, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 25001/07

    STASI c. FRANCE

    La Cour estime donc établi que le requérant a subi en détention des violences suffisamment sérieuses pour conférer aux faits en cause le caractère de traitement inhumain et dégradant, au sens de l'article 3 (voir Pantea précité, § 185, Georgescu c. Roumanie, no 25230/03, § 73, 13 mai 2008, et Premininy c. Russie, no 44973/04, § 81, 10 février 2011).
  • EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 58271/10

    A.S. c. TURQUIE

    Il s'agit là d'une question dont la réponse dépend de l'ensemble des circonstances de l'affaire en cause (Oshurko c. Ukraine, no 33108/05, § 70, 8 septembre 2011, Premininy c. Russie, no 44973/04, § 84, 10 février 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

    FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA

    Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 61, ECHR 2008; mutatis mutandis, Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 74, 10 February 2011; and El-Masri, cited above, §§ 182-85).
  • EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

    D.F. v. LATVIA

    The Court, in its case-law with regard to the protection of vulnerable prisoners, has clarified that the national authorities have an obligation to take all steps reasonably expected to prevent real and immediate risks to prisoners" physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, among many other examples, Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 190, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 21780/07

    ALEKSEJEVA v. LATVIA

    The Court in its case-law with regard to the protection of vulnerable prisoners has clarified that the national authorities have an obligation to take all steps reasonably expected to prevent real and immediate risks to the respective prisoners" physical integrity, of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, among many other examples, Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 190, ECHR 2003-VI (extracts), and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 84, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

    SIZAREV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

    KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht