Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLAH v. HUNGARY

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 56558/00

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 56558/00

  However, and for the reasons given earlier, the Court is satisfied that the domestic court approached the case in accordance with the requirements of the Court's own case-law in this area (cf. Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I, p. 385).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.09.2004 - 56558/00

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).

• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Consequently, in those Article 2 cases in which the Court specifically addressed the question of whether a belief was perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time, it did not adopt the standpoint of a detached observer; instead, it attempted to put itself into the position of the person who used lethal force, both in determining whether that person had the requisite belief and in assessing the necessity of the degree of force used (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2004-XI; Oláh v. Hungary (dec.), 56558/00, 14 September 2004 and Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 189 ).
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 50283/13

  FOUNTAS v. GREECE

  Consequently, in those Article 2 cases in which the Court specifically addressed the question of whether a belief was perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time, it did not adopt the standpoint of a detached observer; instead, it attempted to put itself into the position of the person who used lethal force, both in determining whether that person had the requisite belief and in assessing the necessity of the degree of force used (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2004-XI; Oláh v. Hungary (dec.), no. 56558/00, 14 September 2004; and Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 189).
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45388/99

  KALLIS AND ANDROULLA PANAYI v. TURKEY

  They relied on their version of the facts and on the principles laid down by the Court in the cases of Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI); Bubbins v. the United Kingdom (no. 50196/99, ECHR 2005-II); and Olah v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 56558/00, 14 September 2004).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 37967/18

  SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (No. 2)

  As regards the Government's contention that in the event of an investigative shortcoming irreparably compromising the outcome of the investigation, the only effective remedy would be a civil action for damages, the Court notes that it has already dismissed such an objection in previous cases against Hungary involving allegations of use of force by State agents (see, for instance, Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 46, 10 April 2007; in relation to claims under Article 3, Alhowais, cited above, § 71; and in relation to a claim under Article 2, 01áh v. Hungary (dec.), no. 56558/00, 14 September 2004).