Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAZUKNA v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 32662/06

  BISER KOSTOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  Some of the cases examined have concerned family violence (see M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, 3 September 2015) or violent beating and injuries in a fight (see Sakir v. Greece, no. 48475/09, 24 March 2016; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, 16 April 2014; Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 32662/06, 10 January 2012; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 48475/09

  SAKIR c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  Some of the cases examined have concerned family violence (see M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, 3 September 2015) or violent beating and injuries in a fight (see Sakir v. Greece, no. 48475/09, 24 March 2016; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, 16 April 2014; Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 32662/06, 10 January 2012; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 8307/11

  GÖTHLIN v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  The Court reiterates that where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one remedy of his or her choice (see, among many other authorities, Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 17253/07

  DIMITAR SHOPOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  Some of the cases examined have concerned family violence (see M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, 3 September 2015) or violent beating and injuries in a fight (see Sakir v. Greece, no. 48475/09, 24 March 2016; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, 16 April 2014; Biser Kostov v. Bulgaria, no. 32662/06, 10 January 2012; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  This judgment follows a line of the Court's case-law that disregards the Grand Chamber judgment in Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy ([GC], no. 32967/96, ECHR 2002-I) and, without making a proper distinction, applies to private negligence the case-law that has been developed and applied in relation to inhuman and degrading conduct on the part of State agents exercising physical power.
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 26692/05

  C.A.S. AND C.S. v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  While it is true that under the case-law of this Court (see, for example, O'Keefe v. Ireland, [GC], no. 35810/09, ECHR 2014), Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into alleged ill-treatment even where such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals, one must first discern the conduct that can possibly fall within the ambit of Article 3. The case-law of the Court, adjudicating on the positive obligation of the High Contracting Parties under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, has dealt with cases of rape, sexual abuse or violence (see O'Keeffe v. Ireland, cited above; C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, 20 March 2012; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, 25 March 2014; Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, 28 May 2015), in certain instances coupled with illegal confinement (see S.Z. and others v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  The Court reiterates that where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one remedy of his or her choice (see, among many other authorities, Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-111, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  While it is not the role of this Court to determine what domestic legal framework is the most appropriate for ensuring the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 105, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and the cases cited therein), it reiterates that the manner in which the limitation period is applied must be compatible with the requirements of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 326, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10

  Y. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  While it is true that under the case-law of this Court (see, for example, O'Keefe v. Ireland, [GC], no. 35810/09, ECHR 2014), Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into alleged ill-treatment even where such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals, one must first discern the conduct that can possibly fall within the ambit of Article 3. The case-law of the Court, adjudicating on the positive obligation of the High Contracting Parties under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention, has dealt with cases of rape, sexual abuse or violence (see O'Keeffe v. Ireland, cited above; C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, 20 March 2012; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, 25 March 2014; Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, 28 May 2015), in certain instances coupled with illegal confinement (see S.Z. and others v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 72092/12

  While it is not the role of this Court to determine what domestic legal framework is the most appropriate for ensuring the rights guaranteed by the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 105, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and the cases cited therein), it reiterates that the manner in which the limitation period is applied must be compatible with the requirements of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 326, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 43531/08

  VELEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 29263/12

  S.Z. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 17056/06

  Micallef ./. Malta