Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MROZOWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  The Court also points out that where an individual, when taken into 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 v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  The burden rests on the Government to demonstrate with convincing arguments that the use of force which resulted in the applicant's injuries was not excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 104, 2 November 2006.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  The Court also points out that where an individual, when taken into 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 v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 42066/98

  BURSUC c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 80, 12 October 2004).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).

• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07

  V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

  Le traitement infligé à une personne par des agents de l'Etat est considéré comme soulevant une question sous l'angle de l'article 3 lorsqu'il conduit à un dommage corporel d'une certaine gravité, par exemple une blessure à la jambe conduisant à une nécrose puis à l'amputation, une blessure par balle au genou, une double fracture de la mâchoire et des contusions au visage ou une blessure au visage - avec trois dents cassées - nécessitant des points de suture (Sambor c. Pologne, no 15579/05, § 36, 1er février 2011, Necdet Bulut c. Turquie, no 77092/01, § 24, 20 novembre 2007, Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, §§ 76-77, CEDH 2000-XII, et Mrozowski c. Pologne, no 9258/04, § 28, 12 mai 2009).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03

  GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 80, 12 October 2004; Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 99, 2 November 2006; Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  BOACA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).

 
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  FANZIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  ZELENIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 27294/08

  KONCZELSKA v. POLAND

  The Court has had regard to the amounts of just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage which it has awarded in similar cases against Poland (compare with Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 127, 27 June 2006; mutatis mutandis; Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 48, 12 May 2009; Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 152, ECHR 2007-I ).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 22458/04

  ZAKHARIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).