Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,62522
EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 72250/01 (https://dejure.org/2010,62522)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.07.2010 - 72250/01 (https://dejure.org/2010,62522)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Juli 2010 - 72250/01 (https://dejure.org/2010,62522)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,62522) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    LOPATA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (24)

  • EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11

    NOVRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Similarly, lacking any submissions from the Government about the nature or findings of a domestic investigation into complaints raised by the applicant before the Court and having no transcripts of the meetings between the applicant and the State officials, the Court was not satisfied that the applicant was contacted in connection with a domestic investigation and concluded to a breach of Article 34 of the Convention (see Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 156, 13 July 2010; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 249, 13 July 2006; and Dulas v. Turkey, no. 25801/94, § 81, 30 January 2001).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 26824/04

    KELLER v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes, however, that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention at the hands of the police derives in considerable part from the failure of the domestic authorities to react effectively to the applicant's complaints at the relevant time (compare Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008, with further references, and see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 178, 24 February 2005, again with further references, and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, §§ 124-126, 13 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

    NECHTO v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes, however, that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives to a considerable extent from the failure of the domestic authorities to react effectively to the applicant's complaints at the relevant time (compare Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008, with further references; and see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 178, 24 February 2005, with further references; and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, §§ 124-26, 13 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 27.04.2017 - 34015/07

    ZHERDEV v. UKRAINE

    By contrast, there is no material in the case file which would allow the Court to establish to the required standard that the applicants" parents were in any way prevented from appointing a lawyer for the applicant or that the applicant mistakenly believed or was led to believe that L. had been appointed by his parents rather than by the investigator (contrast, for example, Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 137, 13 July 2010, and Dvorski, cited above, § 102).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 12008/06

    ALEKSEY BORISOV c. RUSSIE

    À cet égard, elle tient à souligner que, en l'espèce, l'impossibilité de produire des preuves découle en grande partie de l'absence d'une enquête approfondie et effective par les autorités nationales à la suite de la plainte présentée par le requérant pour mauvais traitements (Lopata c. Russie, no 72250/01, § 125, Beristain Ukar c. Espagne, no 40351/05, § 42, 8 mars 2011, et Keller c. Russie, no 26824/04, §§ 115-119, 17 octobre 2013), pour laquelle la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention sous son volet procédural (paragraphe 61 ci-dessus).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

    SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA

    In this respect it particularly emphasises that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives in considerable part from the failure of the domestic authorities to react effectively to the applicant's complaints at the relevant time (compare Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 125, 13 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 54204/08

    UZEYIR JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court would nonetheless like to emphasise that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has, in substance, been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives to a large extent from the failure of the domestic authorities to carry out an effective investigation at the relevant time (see Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008; Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 125, 13 July 2010; and Jannatov v. Azerbaijan, no. 32132/07, § 61, 31 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 47532/09

    HAKIM IPEK v. TURKEY

    À cet égard, elle tient à souligner que cette impossibilité découle de l'absence d'une enquête approfondie et effective menée par les autorités nationales, défaillance pour laquelle elle a conclu plus haut à la violation de l'article 2 de la Convention sous son aspect procédural (Osmanoglu c. Turquie, no 48804/99, §§ 53 et 64, 24 janvier 2008; voir aussi, concernant l'article 3 de la Convention, Lopata c. Russie, no 72250/01, § 125, 13 juillet 2010, San Argimiro Isasa c. Espagne, no 2507/07, § 65, 28 septembre 2010, et Beristain Ukar c. Espagne, no 40351/05, § 43, 8 mars 2011, et Etxebarria Caballero c. Espagne, no 4016/12, §§ 58-59, 7 octobre 2014).
  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 22931/09

    BEHÇET SÖGÜT ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    À cet égard, elle tient à souligner que cette impossibilité découle de l'absence d'une enquête approfondie et effective menée par les autorités nationales, défaillance pour laquelle elle a conclu plus haut à la violation de l'article 2 de la Convention sous son aspect procédural (Osmanoglu c. Turquie, no 48804/99, §§ 53 et 64, 24 janvier 2008 ; voir aussi, concernant l'article 3 de la Convention, Lopata c. Russie, no 72250/01, § 125, 13 juillet 2010, San Argimiro Isasa c. Espagne, no 2507/07, § 65, 28 septembre 2010, Beristain Ukar c. Espagne, no 40351/05, § 43, 8 mars 2011, et Etxebarria Caballero c. Espagne, no 74016/12, §§ 58-59, 7 octobre 2014).
  • EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

    VANFULI v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes, however, that its inability to reach any conclusions as to whether there has been treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention derives in a considerable part from the failure of the domestic authorities to react effectively to the applicant's complaints at the relevant time (compare Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 57, 29 July 2008, with further references, and see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 178, 24 February 2005, with further references and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, §§ 124-26, 13 July 2010).
  • EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 74016/12

    ETXEBARRIA CABALLERO c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 40852/05

    SHLYCHKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09

    MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 32132/07

    JANNATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 08.03.2011 - 40351/05

    BERISTAIN UKAR c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 36286/14

    BEORTEGUI MARTINEZ c. ESPAGNE

  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 46505/08

    IGBAL HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 27.10.2011 - 21240/05

    NABOYSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 21062/07

    IGOSHIN c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

    YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 43305/07

    SHARKOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 48435/07

    MAÄ"INOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  • EGMR - 13074/07

    BALBASHEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 6490/08 (anhängig)

    EKAZHEV v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht