Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 36894/04
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04, 3521/07
• EGMR - 36894/04

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  Although this Article cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta, [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145-B, in which periods of more than four days in detention without appearance before a judge were held to be in violation of Article 5 § 3, even in the special context of terrorist investigations; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X; and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, § 65, 6 November 2008, in which a period of three days and twenty-three hours was found to be not "prompt").
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  Although this Article cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it nonetheless imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 4 requires that every arrested or detained person be entitled to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of his detention decided speedily by a court (see Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 98, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  McKAY c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  While promptness has to be assessed in each case according to its special features (see, among other authorities, Aquilina v. Malta, [GC], no. 25642/94, § 48, ECHR 1999-III), the strict time constraint imposed by this requirement of Article 5 § 3 leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145-B, in which periods of more than four days in detention without appearance before a judge were held to be in violation of Article 5 § 3, even in the special context of terrorist investigations; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 33, ECHR 2006-X; and Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, § 65, 6 November 2008, in which a period of three days and twenty-three hours was found to be not "prompt").
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  The independence of the investigation implies not only the absence of a hierarchical or institutional connection, but also independence in practical terms (see Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 91, ECHR 1999-III; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004; and also Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 83, Reports 1998-IV, where the public prosecutor investigating the death of a girl during an alleged clash between security forces and the PKK showed a lack of independence through his heavy reliance on the information provided by the gendarmes implicated in the incident).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  In respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is 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; Selmouni, cited above, § 99; Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 88 and 100, 28 September 2015).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  As with an investigation under Article 2, such investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102; Labita, cited above, § 131; and Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 125, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  It reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C; and Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  In respect of a person who is deprived of his liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is 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; Selmouni, cited above, § 99; Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 88 and 100, 28 September 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

• EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 76577/13

  Italien verurteilt: 18.000 Euro Entschädigung für Amanda Knox

  Toutefois, elle rappelle aussi qu'elle tolère que le dernier échelon des recours internes soit atteint peu après le dépôt de la requête, mais avant qu'elle ne soit appelée à se prononcer sur la recevabilité de celle-ci (Zalyan et autres c. Arménie, nos 36894/04 et 3521/07, § 238, 17 mars 2016, et Skorjanec c. Croatie, no 25536/14, § 44, 28 mars 2017).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 25536/14

  SKORJANEC v. CROATIA

  However, the Court also accepts that the last stage of the exhaustion of domestic remedies may be reached shortly after the lodging of the application but before the Court determines the issue of admissibility (see, for instance, Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, 17 March 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 43082/14

  HAMZAYAN v. ARMENIA

  The applicant argued that the Government's submissions regarding Armenia's lack of responsibility under the Convention for the actions of the "NKR" authorities contradicted the Court's earlier findings on the subject (the applicant notably referred to Chiragov and Others, cited above, §§ 169-86; Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, §§ 214-15, 17 March 2016; and Muradyan v. Armenia no. 11275/07, § 126, 24 November 2016).

 
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 20319/17

  BALSAMO v. SAN MARINO

  However, the Court also accepts that the last stage of the exhaustion of domestic remedies may be reached shortly after the lodging of the application but before the Court determines the issue of admissibility (see, for instance, Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, 17 March 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 67351/13

  HOVHANNISYAN AND KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  36894/04 and 3521/07, §§ 208, 17 March 2016 as regards the legal basis for the Armenian citizens to perform regular military service in the "NKR".
• EGMR, 14.12.2011 - 13216/05

  CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  A cet égard, il renvoie aux affaires Haroutyounian c. Arménie, (no 36549/03, CEDH 2007-III) et Zalyan, Sargsyan et Serobyan c. Arménie ((déc), nos 36894/04 et 3521/07, 11 octobre 2007).
• EGMR - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  36894/04 and 3521/07 Arayik ZALYAN and Others against Armenia lodged on 23 September 2004 and 9 November 2006 respectively.
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has already examined this issue and found, in similar circumstances, that Armenia had jurisdiction over the events which happened in the territory of Nagorno Karabakh and the acts committed by the Karabakhi authorities (see Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, §§ 214-215, 17 March 2016).
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 70572/16

  DZERKORASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  However, when it comes to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism, given the context of protecting human rights (see Zalyan and Others v. Armenia, nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 234, 17 March 2016).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 41817/10

  CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE NKR v. ARMENIA

  Relying on the Court's judgments in the cases of Chiragov and Others v. Armenia ([GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 169-86, ECHR 2015), Muradyan v. Armenia (no. 11275/07, §§ 126, 24 November 2016) and Zalyan and Others v. Armenia (nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, §§ 214-15, 17 March 2016), the applicant argued that the Government's submissions regarding Armenia's lack of responsibility under the Convention for the actions of the "NKR" authorities were in contradiction with the Court's case-law in the matter.
• EGMR - 12381/16 (anhängig)

  POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 4116/16 (anhängig)

  KYUREGHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 5007/15 (anhängig)

  NERSESYAN v. ARMENIA