Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 03.11.2009 - 74832/01
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
- EGMR, 24.02.2016 - 74832/01
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (21)
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism, thereby reinforcing democracy's vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 145, ECHR 2005-...; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-...).In order to maintain public confidence in their law enforcement machinery, Contracting States must ensure that in the investigation of incidents involving the use of force a distinction is made both in their legal systems and in practice between cases of excessive use of force and of racist killing (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 146, ECHR 2005-VII).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).A particularly stringent obligation lies on the authorities to account for deaths in custody and strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of fatalities occurring during detention (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII).
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
Moreover, the object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individuals also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146 - 147, Series A no. 324).The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86).
- EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
The authorities' obligation to account for an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (Salman v. Turkey, cited above, at § 99; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 91, ECHR 2001-III).Moreover, in addition to the obligation on States to account for injuries or deaths in police custody, the Court recalls that the State is also under a positive obligation to take all reasonable measures to ensure that the health and well-being of persons in detention are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1966, §§ 64 et seq., and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI) and taking reasonable measures to minimise a known suicide risk (Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 97, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
Moreover, where the events in issue lie wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 103, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence (see, for example, Ergi v. Turkey, judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1778-79, §§ 83-84, and the Northern Irish judgments, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 120, and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, both of 4 May 2001).
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
As to the burden of proof in this sphere, the Court has established that once the applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (see, among other authorities, Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev, cited above, § 57). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97
THLIMMENOS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-04; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97
WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
Discrimination is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93
MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01
A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-04; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 14383/03
SASHOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00
VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98
VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93
GÜL v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96
KELLY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 23944/04
EREMIASOVA AND PECHOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The burden of proof is on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that an effective remedy was available in theory and practice at the relevant time, namely, that the remedy was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (Mizigárová v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 74832/01, 3 November 2009; T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 55, 16 December 1999).The authorities" obligation to account for an individual in custody is particularly stringent where that individual dies (Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 84, 14 December 2010).
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11
JELIC v. CROATIA
While it is uncertain whether any of the information given to the prosecuting authorities and the police would have resulted in convictions, it is nevertheless expected of national authorities that they pursue all possible leads to establish the circumstances in which a person has been killed, in order to comply with their procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 93, 14 December 2010; and Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 18407/10, § 69, 19 December 2013). - EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08
PETROVIC v. SERBIA
Therefore, these proceedings also failed to comply with the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, having lacked both thoroughness and objectivity (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, §§ 98-100, 14 December 2010; and Juozaitiene and Bikulcius v. Lithuania, nos. 70659/01 and 74371/01, § 91, 24 April 2008). - EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 43606/04
YOTOVA c. BULGARIE
A cet égard, la Cour estime qu'il y a lieu de distinguer la présente affaire de l'affaire Koky et autres c. Slovaquie, no 13624/03, 12 juin 2012, où les indications de motivation raciste derrière les agissements violents d'un groupe de particuliers émanaient exclusivement des dépositions des victimes (voir paragraphes 31-61, 217 in fine et 224 de l'arrêt précité), ainsi que de l'affaire Mizigárová c. Slovaquie, no 74832/01, § 122, 14 décembre 2010, où les autorités ne disposaient d'aucune information concrèrte indiquant l'existence d'un éventuel motif raciste.