Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64572) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
Art. 3 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06
The Court further notes that the applicant failed to produce any other strong evidence corroborating his allegations, such as eyewitness statements (as, for example, in Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 51-52 and 108, 2 April 2009) or documents showing that he had entered the police premises in good health but left it having sustained injuries (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, with further references). - EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02
STOICA v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06
In the present case the only common ground between the parties is the fact that the applicant had sustained some rib fractures, whereas they disagreed on the time and the origin of those injuries and disputed whether they had resulted from the use of force by the police (see and compare with Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, §§ 48 and 66, 4 March 2008). - EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06
The Court further notes that the applicant failed to produce any other strong evidence corroborating his allegations, such as eyewitness statements (as, for example, in Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 51-52 and 108, 2 April 2009) or documents showing that he had entered the police premises in good health but left it having sustained injuries (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, with further references). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06
The Court reiterates that an obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, with further references).
- EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16
PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE
(i) Regard being had to the circumstances of the applicant's arrest and his account of the alleged ill-treatment in relation to the nature and timing of the documented injuries, the available material does not conclusively establish that the applicant was taken into custody in good health and sustained injuries when he was under control of the police (for relevant example, see Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 56-57, 6 December 2007, and Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 54, 15 July 2010).