Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,38430
EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,38430)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.10.2017 - 21759/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,38430)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Oktober 2017 - 21759/15 (https://dejure.org/2017,38430)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,38430) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    TIZIANA PENNINO v. ITALY

    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15
    The Court also pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC] (no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not made unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15
    That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or to use as the basis of their decisions (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 103, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Bati and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

    McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15
    The Court also pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC] (no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not made unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR - 45886/07

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15
    In cases involving the investigation of allegations of ill-treatment, the general principles which apply in determining whether such an investigation was effective for the purposes of Article 3 were restated by the Grand Chamber, inter alia in Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 316-326 ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

    COBZARU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15
    The Court also pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC] (no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not made unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

    GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2017 - 21759/15
    The Court also pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC] (no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not made unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
  • EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 38949/09

    ILTÜMÜR OZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Il appartient alors au Gouvernement de fournir une explication plausible sur les origines des blessures constatées en produisant des preuves établissant des faits qui font peser un doute sur le récit de la victime (Tiziana Pennino c. Italie, no 21759/15, § 35, 12 octobre 2017, mutatis mutandis, Blokhin c. Russie [GC], no 47152/06, § 140, 23 mars 2016), notamment si les allégations de celle-ci sont étayées par des pièces médicales (Dönmüs et Kaplan c. Turquie, no 9908/03, § 44, 31 janvier 2008, Soner Önder c. Turquie, no 39813/98, § 34, 12 juillet 2005, et Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 87, CEDH 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

    GOGALADZE v. GEORGIA

    The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Rivas v. France, no. 59584/00, § 38, 1 April 2004; Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 54, 10 March 2009; Mete and Others v. Turkey, no. 294/08, § 112, 4 October 2011; and Tiziana Pennino v. Italy, no. 21759/15, § 35, 12 October 2017).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht