Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MILANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 14+3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 44614/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104) since a prompt response by the authorities may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  Turning to the present case, the Court considers that the injuries suffered by the applicant, consisting mostly of numerous cuts, combined with his feelings of fear and helplessness, were sufficiently serious to amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104) since a prompt response by the authorities may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention must be regarded as one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention and as enshrining core values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 49, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  Lastly, the scope of the above obligation is one of means, not of result; the authorities must have taken all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident (see, mutatis mutandis, Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104) since a prompt response by the authorities may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

  ABDULSAMET YAMAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition of the investigation is implicit in this context (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2439, §§ 102-104) since a prompt response by the authorities may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 60, 2 November 2004; and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  The respondent State's obligation to investigate possible religious overtones to a violent act is thus an obligation to use best endeavours and is not absolute; the authorities must do what is reasonable in the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; and Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Georgia, cited above, §§ 138-142).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 13178/03

  MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 44614/07

  Another relevant consideration is the need to ensure that the police exercise their powers to control and prevent crime in a manner which fully respects the due process and other guarantees which legitimately place restraints on the scope of their action to investigate crime and bring offenders to justice, including the guarantees contained in Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention (see Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 53, 12 October 2006; and Members (97) of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 96, ECHR 2007-V; see also, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII).