Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POGHOSYAN ET BAGHDASARYAN c. ARMENIE

  Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 3 MRK
  Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 13 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) Violation de l'article 3 du Protocole n° 7 - Droit d'indemnisation en cas d'erreur judiciaire (article 3 du Protocole n° 7 - Indemnisation Erreur ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POGHOSYAN AND BAGHDASARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 - Compensation for wrongful conviction (Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 - Compensation Miscarriage of justice ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 7510/04

  KONTROVA c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06

  Moreover, the facts of the present case were different from those in Keenan v. the United Kingdom (no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III) and Kontrová v. Slovakia (no. 7510/04, § 64, 31 May 2007) because this case did not raise an issue under Article 3.
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06

  Moreover, the facts of the present case were different from those in Keenan v. the United Kingdom (no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III) and Kontrová v. Slovakia (no. 7510/04, § 64, 31 May 2007) because this case did not raise an issue under Article 3.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06

  Thus, for Article 13 to apply it is sufficient for an individual to have an arguable claim in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach in question should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V, and Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III; and, for instance, Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2012, and Mirzoyan v. Armenia, no. 57129/10, §§ 78-83, 23 May 2019).
• EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10

  MIRZOYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has previously held that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 97; Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, § 96, 2 October 2007; and Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, § 46, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  SOROKINS AND SOROKINA v. LATVIA

  Without prejudice to the fact that the second applicant as a family member might have to a certain extent been concerned with the above events, the Court does not find that she was directly affected by the alleged violations (see also Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, § 32, ECHR 2012; contrast Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 69, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 17521/09

  TEYMURAZYAN v. ARMENIA

  Thus, for Article 13 to apply it is sufficient for an individual to have an arguable claim in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131, and Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, § 43, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 16101/18

  CAMILLERI v. MALTA

  The Court refers to its general principles concerning the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 7 as set out and put in practice in its case-law (see, inter alia, Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, §§ 49 -52, ECHR 2012 and Matveyev v. Russia, no. 26601/02, §§ 39-45, 3 July 2008; as well as Soyupova v. Russia, (dec.), no. 37957/15, 19 April 2016; Bachowski v. Poland, (dec.), no. 32463/06, 2 November 2010; Jeronovics v. Latvia, (dec.), no. 547/02, § 77, 10 February 2009, and Georgiou v. Greece, (dec.), no. 45138/98).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 3883/14

  MORGENTHALER c. LUXEMBOURG

  La Cour renvoie aux passages pertinents du Rapport explicatif au Protocole no 7 à la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales (STE No 117), tels qu'ils sont reproduits dans l'arrêt Poghosyan et Baghdasaryan c. Arménie (no 22999/06, § 30, CEDH 2012).