Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN
Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...
Wird zitiert von ... (13) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see e.g. Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; and Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 89, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see e.g. Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; and Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 89, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
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, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
- EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92
DIKME c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see e.g. Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; and Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 89, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
As a general rule, if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see e.g. Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Menesheva, cited above, § 74). - EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96
BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injury or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the 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, §§ 208-213, 24 February 2005; and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-...). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
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, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00
KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injury or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 134, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)). - EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04
The Court reiterates that "[w]here an individual, when taken in 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, cited above, § 87). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 8139/09
Othman (Abu Qatada) ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Its infliction causes severe pain and suffering to the victim and, when its purpose has been to punish or to obtain a confession, the Court has had no hesitation in characterising it as torture (see, among many authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 114 and 115, ECHR 2000-VII; Valeriu and Nicolae Rosca v. Moldova, no. 41704/02, § 64, 20 October 2009 and further references therein; Diri v. Turkey, no. 68351/01, §§ 42-46, 31 July 2007; Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 68 and 69, 11 January 2007). - EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 46903/07
MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
The Government also pointed out, relying on the case of Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (no. 34445/04, 11 January 2007), that under the Azerbaijani law the civil and administrative avenues were available to the applicant in respect of his complaints concerning the conditions of detention and alleged inadequate medical assistance.In this connection, the Court notes that it already found in numerous cases against Azerbaijan that lodging a criminal complaint with the police or the prosecution authorities about the alleged ill-treatment or the unlawful use of force by the law-enforcement authorities constituted an effective remedy to be exhausted before lodging a complaint with the Court (see Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, §§ 23-27, 11 January 2007; Rizvanov v. Azerbaijan, no. 31805/06, §§ 16-20, 17 April 2012; and Najafli v. Azerbaijan, no. 2594/07, §§ 18-21, 2 October 2012).
- EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 31206/05
DJALTI c. BULGARIE
Ces recours doivent exister aÌ€ un degréÌ suffisant de certitude, en pratique comme en théorie, sans quoi leur manqueraient l'effectivité et l'accessibilité voulues (Akdivar et autres, paragraphes précités ; Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 34445/04, § 51, 11 janvier 2007).
- EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07
LENEV v. BULGARIA
Chiefly for this reason, a failure to secure the forensic evidence in a timely manner is one of the most important factors in assessing the overall effectiveness of an investigation into allegations of ill-treatment (ibid., § 59, citing Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 74, 11 January 2007). - EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
As such, the situation in the present case differs from those cases where injuries are sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Pruneanu v. Moldova, no. 6888/03, § 44, 16 January 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007). - EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06
URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE
La Cour ne peut s'empêcher de relever l'absence dans ce rapport de toute conclusion quant au degré de probabilité de la thèse de l'automutilation soutenue par les autorités (mutatis mutandis, Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 34445/04, § 63, 11 janvier 2007, et Dvalishvili c. Géorgie, no 19634/07, § 48, 18 décembre 2012). - EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04
SHAMARDAKOV v. RUSSIA
Par conséquent, un défaut d'expertise médicolégale à bref délai constitue un facteur important de nature à priver l'enquête d'effectivité (Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 34445/04, § 74, 11 janvier 2007). - EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08
KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA
Thus, the situation was quite different from that in cases where the Court has dealt with complaints concerning injuries sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman, cited above, § 100; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007). - EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 11932/04
ORESHKOV c. BULGARIE
Ces recours doivent exister aÌ€ un degréÌ suffisant de certitude, en pratique comme en théorie, sans quoi leur manqueraient l'effectivité et l'accessibilité voulues (Akdivar et autres c. Turquie, 16 septembre 1996, § 65-66, Recueil 1996-IV, et Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 34445/04, § 51, 11 janvier 2007). - EGMR, 15.11.2022 - 3824/17
GÜNGÖR c. TÜRKIYE
Il a manifestement pris en considération le contenu des procès-verbaux établis par la police sans chercher à vérifier l'exactitude des faits relatés ni à donner une explication plausible aux contradictions entre la version des faits donnée par le requérant et les procès-verbaux établis par les forces de l'ordre (Mammadov c. Azerbaïdjan, no 34445/04, §§ 77-78, 11 janvier 2007). - EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10
ATESOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 61239/17
JABBAROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08
IGBAL HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN