Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  V.D. v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  V.D. v. CROATIA (NO. 2)

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  EGMEZ v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  With regard to the relevant principles concerning its jurisdiction in this context, the Court refers to the principles recently set out in the case of Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 47-48, ECHR 2017 (extracts); see also, in the context of the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012).

  "The Court observes that in its judgments in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015) and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009) and its decision in Egmez v. Cyprus ((dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012) it considered the issue of its jurisdiction in relation to the prerogatives of the respondent State and of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  This was confirmed by the Grand Chamber in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 33, ECHR 2015: "The question of compliance by the High Contracting Parties with the Court's judgments falls outside its jurisdiction if it is not raised in the context of the "infringement procedure" provided for in Article 46 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden - PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), nos.

  "The Court observes that in its judgments in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015) and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009) and its decision in Egmez v. Cyprus ((dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012) it considered the issue of its jurisdiction in relation to the prerogatives of the respondent State and of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  With regard to the relevant principles concerning its jurisdiction in this context, the Court refers to the principles recently set out in the case of Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 47-48, ECHR 2017 (extracts); see also, in the context of the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention, Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012).

  The Grand Chamber has, most recently, summarised the Court's approach in Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 47, 11 July 2017, a case concerning a refusal to re-open criminal proceedings which had been the subject of a prior judgment of the Court under Article 6:.

 
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  After all, while the original judgment in that case only found a procedural violation, the original judgment in the case of Egmez v. Cyprus (no. 30873/96, ECHR 2000-XII) - as in the present case - the relevant finding of the Court confirmed a substantive violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  In these circumstances, given that adequate information about the applicant's rights as a victim in the proceedings was duly provided to him, including information on the investigative measures to be taken, and taking into account that he had access to the file and a possibility to indicate facts and propose evidence to be obtained in the investigation, the Court does not find that the investigation was not accessible to the applicant to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests (see, by contrast, Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 44, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 71-74, 24 June 2010, and Enukidze and Girgvliani, cited above, § 250).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  "The Court observes that in its judgments in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015) and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009) and its decision in Egmez v. Cyprus ((dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012) it considered the issue of its jurisdiction in relation to the prerogatives of the respondent State and of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  Moreover, following an investigation there should be a reasoned decision available to reassure a concerned public that the rule of law has been respected (see Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, § 125, 5 June 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  In these circumstances, given that adequate information about the applicant's rights as a victim in the proceedings was duly provided to him, including information on the investigative measures to be taken, and taking into account that he had access to the file and a possibility to indicate facts and propose evidence to be obtained in the investigation, the Court does not find that the investigation was not accessible to the applicant to the extent necessary to safeguard his legitimate interests (see, by contrast, Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 44, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 71-74, 24 June 2010, and Enukidze and Girgvliani, cited above, § 250).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 41561/07

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN - PIRIN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  41561/07 and 20972/08, § 56, 18 October 2011)".

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 6406/21

  M.G. v. LITHUANIA

  Therefore, repeated examinations were necessary because the previous ones contained serious shortcomings which undermined the ability of the investigation to establish the extent of the applicant's injuries (see, mutatis mutandis, Kraulaidis v. Lithuania, no. 76805/11, § 60, 8 November 2016, and contrast V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, § 73, 15 November 2018).
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 62807/09

  MASLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (compare with V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, §§ 51-52, 15 November 2018; Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania [Committee], no. 21171/16, §§ 28-29, 7 May 2020).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  But, as noted in paragraph 255 above, such "relevant new information" is present in this case (compare, mutatis mutandis, with Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, §§ 43-44, ECHR 2003-IV; Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 34-37, 10 April 2008; Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 62-67, 26 July 2011; Ivantoc and Others, cited above, §§ 89-95; and V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, §§ 49-54, 15 November 2018).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

  JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  These decisions thus constitute new facts, which the Court has the jurisdiction to examine (compare Moreira Ferreira (no. 2), cited above, § 47; V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, § 51, 15 November 2018; Egmez, cited above, § 52; and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 61-68, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR - 2705/20 (anhängig)

  BELEY v. UKRAINE

  With respect to the period after the Court's judgment in the case of Beley v. Ukraine [Committee] (no. 34199/09, 20 June 2019), did the investigating authorities comply with the procedural requirements of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did they act with the requisite diligence and promptness, and did they ensure the applicant's effective involvement in the proceedings as a victim (see V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, 15 November 2018)?.
• EGMR - 13255/22 (anhängig)

  MAFALANI v. CROATIA

  Does Article 46 of the Convention preclude the Court's examination of the applicant's new complaint under the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, does the applicant's present application concern only the execution of the Court's judgment rendered in the applicant's initial case of Mafalani v. Croatia, no. 32325/13, 9 July 2015, without raising any relevant new facts, or does it contain relevant new information possibly entailing a fresh violation of the Convention, for the examination of which the Court is competent ratione materiae (compare V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, §§ 46-54, 15 November 2018)?.
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 18869/22

  STITIC v. CROATIA

  However, this does not prevent the Court from considering a new application in so far as it includes new aspects which were not determined in the initial judgment (compare V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, §§ 46-54, 15 November 2018).