Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  N.D. v. Slovenia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49669/07

  P.M. v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  However, as the applicant's complaints were limited to the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings concerning the continuous sexual assault committed against her, the Court considers that it is not necessary in the particular circumstances of the present case, where the offences against the applicant were committed from 1992 until 1994 and therefore at least to a large extent before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Slovenia on 28 June 1994, to decide whether its temporal jurisdiction also extends to issues under Article 8 (see P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 58, 24 January 2012).

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the time taken to open investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, nos. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007, and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 66, 24 January 2012).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  The promptness of the authorities" reaction to the complaints is an important factor (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the time taken to open investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, nos. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007, and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 66, 24 January 2012).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  The relevant principles concerning the State's obligation inherent in Article 3 of the Convention to investigate cases of ill-treatment, and in particular sexual abuse committed by private individuals, are set out in M.C. v. Bulgaria (no. 39272/98, §§ 149, 151 and 153, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  In such cases the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of the prohibition enshrined in Article 3. This means that the domestic judicial authorities must on no account be prepared to let the physical or psychological suffering inflicted go unpunished (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 39326/02, § 34, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, such as by taking witness statements and gathering forensic evidence, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 39326/02

  ÇELIK v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  In such cases the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must meet the requirements of the prohibition enshrined in Article 3. This means that the domestic judicial authorities must on no account be prepared to let the physical or psychological suffering inflicted go unpunished (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 39326/02, § 34, 27 May 2010).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  MATASARU AND SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  Consideration has been given in the Court's judgments to matters such as the time taken to open investigations, delays in identifying witnesses or taking statements (see Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, nos. 38281/08, §§ 88 and 93, 2 November 2010), the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and unjustified protraction of the criminal proceedings resulting in the expiry of the statute of limitations (see Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 101-103, 26 July 2007, and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 66, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  Whether the amount awarded may be regarded as reasonable falls to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case, taking into account different factors, among which are the duration and severity of the violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Shilbergs, cited above, § 74, and Shishkin v. Russia, no. 18280/04, § 108, 7 July 2011).

• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 41990/18

  Y v. BULGARIA

  It is settled that rape and serious sexual assault amount to treatment falling within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention (see Aydin v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, § 83, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, and Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, § 85, 24 January 2008, which concerned rape of detainees by State officials, and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149 and 151, ECHR 2003-XII; P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 63, 24 January 2012; D.J. v. Croatia, no. 42418/10, § 83, 24 July 2012; M.N. v. Bulgaria, no. 3832/06, § 34, 27 November 2012; W. v. Slovenia, no. 24125/06, § 63, 23 January 2014; M.A. v. Slovenia, no. 3400/07, § 46, 15 January 2015; N.D. v. Slovenia, no. 16605/09, § 56, 15 January 2015; S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, § 41, 3 March 2015; I.P. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 33708/12, § 32, 28 April 2015; Y. v. Slovenia, no. 41107/10, § 95, ECHR 2015 (extracts); S.M. v. Russia, no. 75863/11, § 67, 22 October 2015; I.C. v. Romania, no. 36934/08, § 52, 24 May 2016; and B.V. v. Belgium, no. 61030/08, § 55, 2 May 2017, which concerned rape or serious sexual assault by private persons).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  A prompt response by the authorities in investigating allegations of ill-treatment may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among other authorities, Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001; and N.D. v. Slovenia, no. 16605/09, § 60, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 35523/06

  ISAYEVA v. UKRAINE

  The authorities must take the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, such as by taking witness statements and gathering forensic evidence, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see N.D. v. Slovenia, no. 16605/09, § 57, 15 January 2015, and Kraulaidis v. Lithuania, no. 76805/11, § 57, 8 November 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 75863/11

  S.M. v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that the thrust of the applicant's complaint focuses on the effectiveness of the investigation into the rape (see, by contrast, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 148-68, ECHR 2003-XII) and that Article 3 provides sufficient legal basis for the State's duty to conduct an investigation into serious offences against an individual's physical integrity (see P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, § 58, 24 January 2012; N.D. v. Slovenia, no. 16605/09, § 38, 15 January 2015; and M.A. v. Slovenia, no. 3400/07, § 36, 15 January 2015).