Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUBBINS c. ROYAUME-UNI [Extraits]

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 2 en ce qui concerne le manquement allégué de l'Etat à protéger le droit à la vie Non-violation de l'art. 2 en ce qui concerne l'effectivité de l'enquête Violation de l'art. 13 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 as regards the State's alleged failure to protect the right to life No violation of Art. 2 as regards the effectiveness of the investigation Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 50196/99
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

Wird zitiert von ... (47)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52, Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has already had occasion to declare that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 97-98, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has already had occasion to declare that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 97-98, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  The Court recalls in this connection that it has already had occasion to declare that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 97-98, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  They were all trained in the use of firearms and their movements and actions were subject to the control and supervision of experienced senior officers (compare and contrast, Makaratzis v. Greece, [GC], no. 50385/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-).

• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Furthermore, the inquiry required by the coroner of the jury in this case was significantly more demanding than that sought from, and given by, the jury in both Bubbins v. the United Kingdom no. 50196/99, ECHR 2005-II and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, and in those cases this Court had found that the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention had been met.

  "[T]he use of force by agents of the State in pursuit of one of the aims delineated in paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Convention may be justified under this provision where it is based on an honest belief which is perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time but which subsequently turns out to be mistaken" (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 200, Series A no. 324, emphasis added; see also: Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, 9 October 1997, § 192, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; Brady v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 55151/00, 3 April 2001; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138 and 139, ECHR 2005-II; and Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 178-179, ECHR 2011; see also the concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque in Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, 14 June 2011).".

• EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  GIULIANI ET GAGGIO c. ITALIE

  In doing so it cannot, detached from the events at issue, substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

  To hold otherwise "would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and those of others" (McCann and Others, cited above, § 200; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 138 to 140, ECHR 2005-II).

  For the Court to hold otherwise would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law-enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and those of others (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-40, ECHR 2005-II; McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 200, Series A no. 324; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 66, ECHR 2004-XI; and Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-97, 13 March 2007).

• EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  Tod eines Demonstranten beim G-8-Gipfel in Genua

  When called upon to examine whether the use of lethal force was legitimate, the Court, detached from the events at issue, cannot substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-II).

 
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14

  HAÁSZ AND SZABÓ v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, the Court has held in previous cases that, in carrying out its assessment of the planning and control phase of law-enforcement operations from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, it must have particular regard to the context in which the incident occurred, as well as to the way in which the situation developed (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 141, ECHR 2005-II (extracts).

  Given that officer K., for good reasons, honestly believed that it was necessary to open fire in order to protect his associate's life and limb, the Court should have reached the conclusion that the use of potentially lethal force was "absolutely necessary" (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 64-66, ECHR 2004-XI; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 138, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); and Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 189, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 52391/99

  RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  En juger autrement, ce serait imposer à l'Etat et à ses agents chargés de l'application des lois une charge irréaliste qui risquerait de s'exercer aux dépens de leur vie et de celle d'autrui (McCann et autres c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 27 septembre 1995, série A no 324, pp. 58-59, § 200 ; plus récemment, Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 138, CEDH 2005-... (extraits)).

  En tout état de cause, certaines limites au contrôle public sont admises (voir Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, §§ 157-158, 17 mars 2005, où la Cour a admis que l'effectivité de l'enquête n'avait pas été affaiblie par la décision d'accorder l'anonymat aux agents A, B, C et D).

• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 53087/07

  MUSTAFA ALDEMIR c. TURQUIE

  Pour le Gouvernement, il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour (il cite l'arrêt Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 139, CEDH 2005-II) que, dans les circonstances de la cause, la Cour ne peut substituer sa propre appréciation de la situation à celle du lieutenant M.E. qui, selon le Gouvernement, a dû réagir dans le feu de l'action à ce qu'il aurait perçu de bonne foi comme une situation dangereuse.

  Pour apprécier si le recours à la force était nécessaire, la Cour « ne saurait (...) substituer sa propre appréciation de la situation à celle de l'agent qui a dû réagir, dans le feu de l'action, à ce qu'il percevait sincèrement comme un danger afin de sauver sa vie'(Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 139, CEDH 2005-II (extraits)).

• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08

  REYNOLDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In particular, it has considered whether there is an arguable claim of a breach of Article 2 of the Convention and whether civil proceedings for establishing any liability and, if so, awarding non-pecuniary damages were available to the applicant in that respect (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 123-133, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 96-102, ECHR 2002-II; and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 173/176, ECHR 2005-II).

  The most therefore that could be recovered under the 1934 Act on behalf of the deceased's estate would have been the funeral expenses (as regards the 1976 and 1934 Acts, see the above-cited Keenan judgment, § 129 and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 172, ECHR 2005-II).

• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 41773/98

  SCAVUZZO-HAGER ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  L'objet et le but de la Convention, en tant qu'instrument de protection des êtres humains, requièrent que l'article 2 soit interprété et appliqué d'une manière qui en rende les exigences concrètes et effectives (voir, entre autres, les arrêts Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 134, CEDH 2005-...(extraits), Anguelova c. Bulgarie, no 38361/97, § 109, CEDH 2002-IV, McCann et autres c. Royaume-Uni, 27 septembre 1995, série A no 324, pp.
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

  NIKA v. ALBANIA

  When called upon to examine whether the use of lethal force was legitimate, the Court, detached from the events at issue, cannot substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court must also be cautious about revisiting the events with the wisdom of hindsight (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 64937/19

  ELVAN c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 16281/10

  AYDAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32245/19

  MACHALIKASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

  BOZKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 58447/00

  ZAVOLOKA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 51210/99

  NEHYET GÜNAY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 13326/18

  PÂRVU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 50283/13

  FOUNTAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 56717/08

  AYVAZYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  WASILEWSKA AND KALUCKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 2186/12

  YENGIBARYAN AND SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 31754/18

  BOURAS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 23038/07

  ÜLÜFER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 22459/04

  PARLAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98

  MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 40073/98

  IHSAN BILGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 50739/99

  PERK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 65774/11

  SAVEYKINY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 33862/17

  KHAYAURI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 47357/08

  ALIKAJ ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 21449/04

  CELNIKU c. GRECE
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 11464/12

  YUKHYMOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 23029/04

  SAHISMAIL CAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 38804/09

  DELICE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 15750/02

  UYAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 78019/17

  GASANGUSENOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 21302/13

  TONKEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 26330/12

  BLONSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 40957/07

  PEARSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 5527/08

  BENNETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

  VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA