Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16147
EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,16147)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.01.2012 - 20212/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,16147)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Januar 2012 - 20212/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,16147)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16147) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    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; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Gladyshev, cited above, § 52; Oleg Nikitin, cited above, § 45; and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

    AVSAR c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    The standard of proof relied upon by the Court is that "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    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; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006).
  • EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

    KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004; and Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    The Court reiterates that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 51, 30 July 2009; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

    MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    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; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006).
  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    Finally, the investigation into alleged ill-treatment by State agents should be independent (see ÖÄ?ur v. Turkey, [GC], no. 21954/93, ECHR 1999-III, §§ 91-92; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 35, 9 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 72000/01

    GÖÇMEN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05
    The use of evidence obtained by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention always raises serious issues as to the fairness of the proceedings even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction (see Ä°çöz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 54919/00, 9 January 2003; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 99 and 104; Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, § 73, 17 October 2006; and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

    SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

    Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot

  • EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

    OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 2807/04

    GLADYSHEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

    KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

    SCHENK c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

    LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and also Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 52, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, § 53, 17 January 2012).
  • EGMR - 53373/14 (anhängig)

    ZHDAN v. RUSSIA

    has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; and, among many other authorities, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 122-123, 19 March 2009; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 57, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, §§ 53-54, 56, 17 January 2012; A.A. v. Russia, no. 49097/08, §§ 75, 77 and 80-81, 17 January 2012; Yudina v. Russia, no. 52327/08, §§ 67-68, 10 July 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 49-50, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 53-55, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 60-61, 4 April 2013; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 52-53, 18 July 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 61-62, 28 November 2013; Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, § 51, 30 January 2014)?.
  • EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 33469/06

    KHISMATULLIN v. RUSSIA

    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and also Lyapin, cited above, § 113; Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, § 45, 9 October 2008; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 52, 30 July 2009; and Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, § 53, 17 January 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht