Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
LAKATOSOVÁ AND LAKATOS v. SLOVAKIA
Violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)
Arrêt Lakato?¡ová et Lakato?¡ c. Slovaquie - fusillade au domicile d'une famille rom: défaut d'enquête sur un éventuel mobile raciste
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)
Judgment Lakato?¡ová and Lakato?¡ v. Slovakia - failure to investigate possible racist motive in shooting spree at Roma family's home
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 29414/09
CIORCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
29414/09 and 44841/09, § 158, 27 January 2015, which concerned the shooting and injuring of a large number of Roma during a police raid). - EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 44862/04
DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
Furthermore, at all events, there must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results to secure accountability in practice (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III with further references), maintain public confidence in the authorities" adherence to the rule of law, and prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, for example, Dimitrova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 44862/04, 27 January 2011, § 77). - EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03
FEDORCHENKO AND LOZENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 110, ECHR 2005-VII), even where the presumed perpetrator of the attack is not a State agent (see Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 34137/03, 11 January 2011 with further references; Fedorchenko and Lozenko v. Ukraine, no. 387/03, § 64, 20 September 2012; and Balázs, cited above, § 51).
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02
BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Nachova and Others, cited above, § 160, which concerned the shooting and killing of two Roma men by a military officer; Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 70, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), which concerned the beating of two Roma men by police officers; Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 66, 31 May 2007, which concerned the beating of a Roma by a skinhead group; Fedorchenko and Lozenko, cited above, § 65, which concerned the death of the applicants" relatives as the result of an arson attack; and Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, nos. - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
The obligation to conduct an effective investigation is an obligation which concerns the means to be employed, and not the results to be achieved (see Nachova and Others, cited above, § 160, and Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 93, 14 December 2010), but the nature and degree of scrutiny satisfying the minimum threshold of effectiveness depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and it is not possible to reduce the variety of situations which might occur to a bare check-list of acts of investigation or other simplified criteria (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-110, ECHR 1999-IV, and Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 80, ECHR 2000-VI). - EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 110, ECHR 2005-VII), even where the presumed perpetrator of the attack is not a State agent (see Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 34137/03, 11 January 2011 with further references; Fedorchenko and Lozenko v. Ukraine, no. 387/03, § 64, 20 September 2012; and Balázs, cited above, § 51). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
That is to say it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible, where those responsible are State agents, but also where they are private individuals (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 233, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, § 148, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
Furthermore, at all events, there must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results to secure accountability in practice (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III with further references), maintain public confidence in the authorities" adherence to the rule of law, and prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, for example, Dimitrova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 44862/04, 27 January 2011, § 77). - EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 34137/03
GEORGI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16
The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 110, ECHR 2005-VII), even where the presumed perpetrator of the attack is not a State agent (see Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 34137/03, 11 January 2011 with further references; Fedorchenko and Lozenko v. Ukraine, no. 387/03, § 64, 20 September 2012; and Balázs, cited above, § 51).
- EGMR - 29229/22 (anhängig)
KURUOVÁ AND HORVÁTHOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA
In particular, did the domestic authorities have before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in their alleged ill-treatment (see, a contrario, Adam v. Slovakia, no. 68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016, with further references and, mutatis mutandis, Lakatosová and Lakatos v. Slovakia, no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018)? If so, did they take such steps?. - EGMR - 35786/22 (anhängig)
STALOVIC v. SERBIA
Have the State authorities involved in this case complied with their additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the impugned events (see, for example, Lakatosová and Lakatos v. Slovakia, no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018, with further references)?. - EGMR - 28273/23 (anhängig)
S.T. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Furthermore, did the domestic authorities have before them information that was sufficient to bring into play their additional duty, to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice towards the Roma minority may have played a role in the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant's brother (see, a contrario, Adam v. Slovakia, no. 68066/12, § 94, 26 July 2016, with further references and, mutatis mutandis, Lakatosová and Lakatos v. Slovakia, no. 655/16, § 75, 11 December 2018)? If so, did they take such steps?.