Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEMSWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Collette and Michael Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  While there appeared to be two lines of relevant case-law, they considered that the governing authority lay with the Caraher v. the United Kingdom line ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000 I; the six judgments concerning Northern Ireland cited at paragraph 37 above; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010).

  Save in relation to the complaint about investigative delay, the Court is not in a position to consider the merits of the complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 because the applicants" civil action is pending (for example, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 41894/98; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 19-23, ECHR 2001-III; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010) and because the initiation of further relevant investigative procedures, including of a criminal and/or disciplinary nature, remains possible (for example, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

  In this regard the present two cases must be distinguished from the case of Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom (no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III), where the applicant had not availed himself of the opportunity of civil proceedings, as well as from the case of Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I), where the applicant had in fact come to an agreement on compensation.

  The Government relied on a line of British cases exemplified by Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I (see §§ 35 and 45 of the Chamber's judgment).

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  On 7 June 2001 the Coroner opened a pre-inquest hearing, in 16 cases including into John Hemsworth's death, to hear submissions on the implications of the judgments of this Court of 4 May 2001 in certain cases concerning deaths in Northern Ireland (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, (extracts); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, both in ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97; and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96).

  In this regard the present two cases must be distinguished from the case of Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom (no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III), where the applicant had not availed himself of the opportunity of civil proceedings, as well as from the case of Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I), where the applicant had in fact come to an agreement on compensation.

  As I understand it, the underlying logic in previous Northern Ireland cases, such as Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III, is that the system of civil remedies in Northern Ireland (and indeed in the United Kingdom in general) is sufficiently well armed and strong to constitute, in principle, an effective means of establishing facts and liability and of obtaining adequate compensation, as appropriate, in relation to killings or serious ill-treatment allegedly committed by State agents.

• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  As to the exception invoked by the Government about their pending civil action, they relied on the line of jurisprudence represented by Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 56, ECHR 2009...; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, §§ 31-48, 27 May 2010; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 121, 29 July 2010; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

  Save in relation to the complaint about investigative delay, the Court is not in a position to consider the merits of the complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 because the applicants" civil action is pending (for example, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 41894/98; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 19-23, ECHR 2001-III; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010) and because the initiation of further relevant investigative procedures, including of a criminal and/or disciplinary nature, remains possible (for example, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

  The applicants, on the other hand, relied on a line of authority originating in Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007 (see § 50 of the Chamber's judgment), which suggests that the examination of a substantive complaint under Article 2 (or 3) should be tied to the Court's assessment of all the procedural protections available, including investigative processes and not being limited to any civil action brought or available.

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  In these circumstances I remain unconvinced that the domestic investigation was intended to "lead to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see Assenov and Others, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, with further reference to McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, § 161, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324; Kaya v. Turkey, § 86, 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I; and Yasa v. Turkey, § 98, 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI).

  This was brought out in the Court's judgment in 1996 Grand Chamber case of Akdivar v. Turkey (Reports, 1996-IV), one of the first cases to establish the State's duty to investigate under the Convention (for "Turkish" judgments employing similar reasoning, see Aksoy v. Turkey, Reports 1996-IV, and Mentes and Others v. Turkey [GC], Reports 1997-VIII; the "Turkish" case-law in this regard was then developed by the Court, through reading a duty to investigate directly into Article 2, in Kaya v. Turkey, Reports 1998-I, §§ 86-87, relying on the earlier British "Death-on-the-Rock" case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, §§ 161-163).

• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  FADIME AND TURAN KARABULUT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  As to the exception invoked by the Government about their pending civil action, they relied on the line of jurisprudence represented by Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 56, ECHR 2009...; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, §§ 31-48, 27 May 2010; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 121, 29 July 2010; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

  On one reading of this case-law, it requires that, for the Court to refrain from considering the substantive complaint in the international proceedings brought before it, there must be a domestic procedure capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the perpetrator, not that that procedure must have in fact have done so (see, for example, the language used in Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, 27 May 2010, § 39; and Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, 30 October 2012, § 54).

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  KELLY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  On 7 June 2001 the Coroner opened a pre-inquest hearing, in 16 cases including into John Hemsworth's death, to hear submissions on the implications of the judgments of this Court of 4 May 2001 in certain cases concerning deaths in Northern Ireland (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, (extracts); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, both in ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97; and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96).

  This premise seems to have little support in the Court's position in hundreds of other cases, where the Court held that "any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness" (see, among many other authorities, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, §§ 96-97, 4 May 2001; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, 24 March 2009).

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  On 7 June 2001 the Coroner opened a pre-inquest hearing, in 16 cases including into John Hemsworth's death, to hear submissions on the implications of the judgments of this Court of 4 May 2001 in certain cases concerning deaths in Northern Ireland (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, (extracts); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, both in ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97; and Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96).

  Save in relation to the complaint about investigative delay, the Court is not in a position to consider the merits of the complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 because the applicants" civil action is pending (for example, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 41894/98; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 19-23, ECHR 2001-III; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010) and because the initiation of further relevant investigative procedures, including of a criminal and/or disciplinary nature, remains possible (for example, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 39953/07

  BAILEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  While there appeared to be two lines of relevant case-law, they considered that the governing authority lay with the Caraher v. the United Kingdom line ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000 I; the six judgments concerning Northern Ireland cited at paragraph 37 above; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010).

  Save in relation to the complaint about investigative delay, the Court is not in a position to consider the merits of the complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 because the applicants" civil action is pending (for example, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 41894/98; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 19-23, ECHR 2001-III; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010) and because the initiation of further relevant investigative procedures, including of a criminal and/or disciplinary nature, remains possible (for example, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  MOJSIEJEW v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  This premise seems to have little support in the Court's position in hundreds of other cases, where the Court held that "any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness" (see, among many other authorities, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, §§ 96-97, 4 May 2001; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  This premise seems to have little support in the Court's position in hundreds of other cases, where the Court held that "any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness" (see, among many other authorities, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, §§ 96-97, 4 May 2001; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 41894/98

  HAY contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 37715/97

  SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  La présente opinion porte sur les arrêts McCaughey et autres c. Royaume-uni et Collette et Michael Hemsworth c. Royaume-Uni (n° 58559/09), adoptés le même jour.
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  RANDELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating an alleged infringement of the right to life 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 Mucibabic, cited above, § 132; see, also, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, 4 May 2001; McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 130, ECHR 2013; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, § 69, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 28864/18

  GRIBBEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Relevant Committee of Ministers Resolutions 93. In addition to its earlier judgment in the present case (McCaughey and Others, cited above), the Court has adopted seven other judgments concerning the investigation of killings by security forces in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1998 (see Hugh Jordan, cited above; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, 28 May 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the complaint under the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see mutatis mutandis Collette and Michael Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, § 67, 16 July 2013; McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 129, 16 July 2013; and Amine Güzel v. Turkey, no. 41844/09, § 35, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 2770/09

  GHEORGHE DIMA c. ROUMANIE

  Compte tenu de ce qui précède, la Cour considère que le volet matériel du grief tiré par le requérant de l'article 3 de la Convention est prématuré et qu'il doit être rejeté en application de l'article 35 §§ 1 et 4 de la Convention pour non-épuisement des voies de recours internes (voir, mutatis mutandis, Hemsworth c. Royaume-Uni, no 58559/09, § 67, 16 juillet 2013, McCaughey et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 43098/09, § 35, CEDH 2013 et Serban Marinescu c. Roumanie, no 68842/13, §§ 50-54, 15 décembre 2015).