Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,33037) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IRINA SMIRNOVA v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SMIRNOVA v. UKRAINE
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 28261/06
COSIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05
It appears that in the present case applicable law did not afford to the applicant any meaningful forum in which she could object against cohabitation with A.N., V.S. and their acquaintances on the ground that such cohabitation created disproportionate consequences for her rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, §§ 49-50 and 55, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 21-23, 15 January 2009; and B. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 61382/09, § 74, 16 July 2013) and obtain appropriate and expeditious protection against unwanted intrusions into her personal space and home, including, if necessary, by way of an injunction order (see, mutatis mutandis, Söderman, § 85). - EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 61382/09
B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05
It appears that in the present case applicable law did not afford to the applicant any meaningful forum in which she could object against cohabitation with A.N., V.S. and their acquaintances on the ground that such cohabitation created disproportionate consequences for her rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, §§ 49-50 and 55, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 21-23, 15 January 2009; and B. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 61382/09, § 74, 16 July 2013) and obtain appropriate and expeditious protection against unwanted intrusions into her personal space and home, including, if necessary, by way of an injunction order (see, mutatis mutandis, Söderman, § 85). - EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 38435/13
B.V. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05
For this positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the ill-treatment complained of reached the threshold of severity proscribed under Article 3 (see B.V. and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 38435/13, §§ 152-53, 15 December 2015) or that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk of such ill-treatment (see orÄ‘evic v. Croatia, no. 41526/10, § 139, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 10161/13
M. AND M. v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05
This assessment should, above all, take due account of the psychological effect that the risk of repeated harassment, intimidation and violence may have on the victim's everyday life (see Valiuliene, cited above, §§ 68-69; orÄ‘evic, cited above, §§ 90-93; and M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, §§ 141-42, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). - EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07
D.F. v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 1870/05
This requirement extends to ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see, among other authorities, D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, § 83, 29 October 2013 and Valiuliene v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 75, 26 March 2013).
- EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10
CWIK v. POLAND
This obligation has been recognised, inter alia, in the following "private" contexts: a stepfather beating a child with a cane (see A. v. UK, cited above, §§ 22-24); neglect and abuse suffered by children at the hands of their parents (see Z and Others, cited above, § 74) or their stepfather (see E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 89, 26 November 2002); rape (see, among other authorities, M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 148, and S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, § 41, 3 March 2015); violent assault on worshipers (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 102, 3 May 2007); acts of domestic violence and threatening conduct (see, among other authorities, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 161, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 74-75, 9 July 2019); sectarian violence towards schoolchildren and their parents (see P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28326/09, 23 November 2010, § 38); serious assaults on individuals (see, for example, Beganovic, cited above, § 66; Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 95, 17 December 2009; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, § 49, 16 April 2013; and Irina Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 1870/05, § 73, 13 October 2016); attack on a Hare Krishna member (see Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 87, 14 December 2010); sterilisation of Roma woman without informed consent (see V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 119, ECHR 2011 (extracts); sexual abuse of children by a teacher in primary school (see O"Keeffe, cited above, § 153); homophobic violence (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 71, 12 May 2015); and a child's ill-treatment by teachers of a nursery school (see V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 172, 7 March 2017). - EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 17496/19
LEVCHUK v. UKRAINE
In this connection, the Court has held, in particular, that where an individual makes a credible assertion of having been subjected to repeated acts of domestic violence, however trivial the isolated incidents might be, it falls on the domestic authorities to assess the situation in its entirety, including the risk that similar incidents would continue (see, mutatis mutandis, Irina Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 1870/05, §§ 71 and 89, 13 October 2016).