Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CEESAY v. AUSTRIA
No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CEESAY v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
The relevant provisions of September 1992 "Malta Declaration", the version in force at the relevant time, can be found in Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 69, ECHR 2005-II (extracts).This could be seen from the fact that the first examination had been carried out by the police doctor directly after Y.C."s announcement of his hunger strike and that the ensuing daily medical check-ups had continued until his death (contrast Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 103-104, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
- EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 52750/99
LORSE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
In assessing whether such a measure may fall within the ambit of Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure and its duration, the objective pursued and the effects of the measure on the person concerned (see Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 51, ECHR 2003-II; and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 63, 4 February 2003). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
- EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99
VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
In assessing whether such a measure may fall within the ambit of Article 3 in a given case, regard must be had to the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure and its duration, the objective pursued and the effects of the measure on the person concerned (see Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 51, ECHR 2003-II; and Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, § 63, 4 February 2003). - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
Given the adequacy of the equipment in the cell and the short duration (less than two hours) of Y.C."s detention there, the intensity of the separation measure had not attained such a level of severity as to bring his detention in the security cell within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 112, ECHR 2001-VIII). - EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04
PREMININY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
Furthermore the Court has emphasised that the positive obligation to protect persons in custody must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, in the context of Article 3, Pantea v. Romania, nï‚° 33343/96, § 189, 3 June 2003; Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012; in the context of Article 2 see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447/09, §§ 71-72, 19 July 2012, with further references). - EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09
TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
Furthermore the Court has emphasised that the positive obligation to protect persons in custody must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, in the context of Article 3, Pantea v. Romania, nï‚° 33343/96, § 189, 3 June 2003; Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012; in the context of Article 2 see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447/09, §§ 71-72, 19 July 2012, with further references). - EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 38447/09
KETREB c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
Furthermore the Court has emphasised that the positive obligation to protect persons in custody must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, in the context of Article 3, Pantea v. Romania, nï‚° 33343/96, § 189, 3 June 2003; Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 83, 10 February 2011; Tautkus v. Lithuania, no. 29474/09, § 52, 27 November 2012; in the context of Article 2 see Ketreb v. France, no. 38447/09, §§ 71-72, 19 July 2012, with further references). - EGMR, 18.01.2017 - 41576/98
GANCI ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE L'ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
On the other hand, removal from association with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or degrading punishment (see Messina v. Italy (no. 2) (dec.), no. 25498/94, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06
ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14
When Y.C. had refused to be examined by the police doctor on 4 October 2005, he had immediately been transferred to a public hospital for a complete clinical evaluation (contrast Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, §§ 151-158, 22 December 2008). - EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06
STANEV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97
Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97
ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 3566/16
ALKHATIB ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
La Cour relève que dans les circonstances particulières de l'affaire, reprocher aux requérants de ne pas avoir déposé une plainte formelle conduirait à faire peser, de manière inappropriée, sur eux et non plus sur le Gouvernement l'obligation découlant de l'article 2 de la Convention de mener une enquête effective (voir, mutatis mutandis, Ceesay c. Autriche, no 72126/14, § 72, 16 novembre 2017). - EGMR - 15049/23 (anhängig)
DI LONARDO v. ITALY
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, did the domestic authorities conduct an effective investigation into the death of the applicant's brother, as required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Prizreni v. Albania, no. 29309/16, §§ 39-43, 11 June 2019, and Ceesay v. Austria, no. 72126/14, §§ 82-95, 16 November 2017)?.