Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 34 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - awards (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (46)Neu Zitiert selbst (31)

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  Furthermore, the Court has already examined complaints under this provision where the alleged victim did not die as a result of the impugned conduct (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-VII).

  The Court has found that while the Russian civil courts in theory have the capacity to make an independent assessment of factual and legal issues, in practice the weight attached to the findings of the preceding criminal proceedings is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would be discarded and such a remedy would prove to be only theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective, as required by the Convention (see Chember, cited above, § 71; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 155, 24 February 2005; and Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 147, 24 February 2005).

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  Furthermore, the Court has already examined complaints under this provision where the alleged victim did not die as a result of the impugned conduct (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 75, ECHR 2000-VII).

  The Court has found that while the Russian civil courts in theory have the capacity to make an independent assessment of factual and legal issues, in practice the weight attached to the findings of the preceding criminal proceedings is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would be discarded and such a remedy would prove to be only theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective, as required by the Convention (see Chember, cited above, § 71; Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 155, 24 February 2005; and Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 147, 24 February 2005).

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that Article 3 imposes on the State a duty to protect the physical well-being of persons who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being within the control of the authorities, such as, for instance, detainees or conscripted servicemen (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 50, 3 July 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-IX, and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).

  The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 66, 3 July 2008, and Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, § 125, 29 May 2008), which reads as follows:.

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention where the effectiveness of the official investigation has been at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV).

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  The Court considers that the Government's objection should be joined to the merits, since it is closely linked to the substance of the applicant's complaint about the State's alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 88, 26 January 2006).

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see, among many authorities, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107 et seq., 26 January 2006, and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, §§ 102 et seq.).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  For the reasons set out above, no effective criminal investigation can be considered to have been carried out in accordance with Article 13, the requirements of which are broader than the obligation to investigate imposed by Article 3 (see Cobzaru, cited above, § 83, and, mutatis mutandis, Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, § 105, 20 April 2004, and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey, no. 23763/94, § 119, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  31417/96 and 32377/96, §§ 22-23, ECHR 2000).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, §§ 80-82, 26 July 2007; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 161-162, ECHR 2002-IV; and Süheyla Aydın v. Turkey, no. 25660/94, § 208, 24 May 2005).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  An award may still be made notwithstanding the large number of imponderables involved in the assessment of future losses, though the greater the lapse of time involved the more uncertain the link between the breach and the damage becomes (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 426 et seq., 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  The Court observes that in some previous cases where the loss of future earnings was at issue, the Court based its calculations on the actuarial calculations of capital needed for maintaining a certain level of income, as produced by the applicants" representatives (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 350, ECHR 2003-V, and Orhan, cited above, § 433).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 28298/95

  BULDAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00

  ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 25660/94

  SÜHEYLA AYDIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01

  NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EKMR, 24.01.1968 - 3321/67

  GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF GREECE ; GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY v. THE …

• OLG Hamburg, 08.03.2018 - 1 Ws 114/17

  Eröffnung des Hauptverfahrens im Fall häuslicher Gewalt: Beweisverwertungsverbot …

  Die Verpflichtung aus Art. 3 EMRK verlangt im Übrigen, dass die Behörden und Gerichte der Konventionsstaaten von Amts wegen wirksame Ermittlungen über behauptete Misshandlungen durchführen, selbst wenn die Täter Privatpersonen sind (vgl. EGMR, Urt. v. 17. Dezember 2009 - 32704/04, Rn. 98 f., BeckRS 2014, 21153).
• EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

  BOUYID v. BELGIUM

  With reference to Salman v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), Denis Vasilyev v. Russia (no. 32704/04, 17 December 2009), and Valiuliene v. Lithuania (no. 33234/07, 26 March 2013), the third party pointed out that the Court considered that persons in police custody were in a vulnerable position and that Article 3 imposed a duty on States to protect the physical well-being of persons who were in such a position, and that it took account of the victim's feeling of fear and helplessness in assessing whether the Article 3 threshold had been reached.
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 25018/10

  IBRAHIM DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE

  Parmi les six affaires où la ligne de jurisprudence Beganovic a été appliquée à des actes de particuliers (Denis Vasilyev c. Russie, n° 32704/04, 17 décembre 2009, Biser Kostov c. Bulgarie, n° 32662/06, 10 janvier 2012, Mityaginy c. Russie, n° 20325/06, 4 décembre 2012, Dimitar Shopov c. Bulgarie, n° 17253/07, 16 avril 2013 (affaire dans laquelle l'infraction en question a au départ été qualifiée de tentative de meurtre), Aleksandr Nikonenko c. Ukraine, n° 54755/08, 14 novembre 2013, et Ceachir c. République de Moldova, n° 50115/06, 10 décembre 2013, une seule (Ceachir) concernait un membre d'un groupe vulnérable, et dans l'affaire Denis Vasilyev les vices de procédure ont probablement favorisé l'impunité des policiers.

  Denis Vasilyev c. Russie, n° 32704/04, 17 décembre 2009 (la Cour souligne que la police a en particulier failli à examiner la possibilité que des policiers ivres puissent avoir été impliqués), Biser Kostov c. Bulgarie, n° 32662/06, 10 janvier 2012 (la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3 au motif que le procureur avait nui au contrôle juridictionnel en continuant à annuler l'affaire malgré les ordres du juge de continuer l'enquête), Mityaginy c. Russie, n° 20325/06, 4 décembre 2012 (la Cour a trouvé une violation à raison de l'ineffectivité de l'enquête, qui avait été annulée et rouverte au moins douze fois sur dix ans sans aucun résultat final car finalement l'action s'est éteinte par la prescription), et Dimitar Shopov c. Bulgarie, n° 17253/07, 16 avril 2013 (le requérant a été poignardé à l'estomac pendant une bagarre collective. L'enquêteur chargé de l'affaire a fait preuve d'inactivité: la Cour a souligné en particulier qu'aucune évaluation médicale n'avait été demandée avant un an après l'agression. La Cour a estimé que l'absence d'enquête effective a emporté violation de l'article 3) ; Aleksandr Nikonenko c. Ukraine, n° 54755/08, 14 novembre 2013 (en conséquence de l'inaction du procureur, l'affaire s'est heurtée à la forclusion. La Cour a trouvé une violation de l'article 3 car l'Ukraine a admis que l'enquête avait été ineffective) ; Ceachir c. République de Moldova, n° 50115/06, 10 décembre 2013 (la requérante, une femme âgée, fragile et malade, fut agressée par un vendeur de rue sur un marché public et fut blessée à la tête. L'affaire fut interrompue seize fois - y compris en raison de l'absence du procureur et du juge -, ce qui a finalement entraîné la prescription de l'action. La Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3).

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  BURES v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Even though the scope of the State's positive obligations might differ between cases where treatment contrary to Article 3 has been inflicted through the involvement of State agents and cases where violence is inflicted by private individuals, the requirements as to an official investigation are similar (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009).

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009).

• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 43002/20

  POGIBKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation of alleged ill-treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 99, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  Fourth, the victim should be able to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another, in particular, by having access to the materials of the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III, and Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008; see also Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 157, 17 December 2009; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 92, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, § 107, 23 February 2006).

  He was not granted the procedural status of "victim" and could not therefore exercise the procedural rights attached to that status, such as the rights to lodge applications, to put questions to the experts or to obtain copies of procedural decisions (compare Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 157, 17 December 2009, and Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 93, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts)).

• EGMR, 28.05.2015 - 41107/10

  Y. v. SLOVENIA

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, such as witness testimony and forensic evidence, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 10853/16

  MYRONYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation of alleged ill-treatment, even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 99, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 3564/11

  EREMIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Furthermore, Article 3 requires that the authorities conduct an effective official investigation into the alleged ill-treatment even if such treatment has been inflicted by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 98-99, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  Against this background, and in so far as monetary compensation is relevant in the context of the present discussion on just satisfaction, the Court finds no indication, and the respondent Government have not argued otherwise, that the domestic law allows adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time in respect of the Court's findings concerning the death inflicted on the applicant's son and the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 76-77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 59255/14

  PYLYPCHUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 48475/09

  SAKIR c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 23361/14

  YAKOVIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 38152/11

  STOYKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 26608/11

  T.M. AND C.M. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  KUMMER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 74839/10

  MUDRIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10

  CWIK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 24125/06

  W. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49669/07

  P.M. v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 3473/06

  TCACI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 5269/08

  SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 61382/09

  B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 20212/13

  KHOMENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16

  PERTAIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 49742/09

  BASTÜRK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 3400/07

  M.A. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 57123/08

  DIMCHO DIMOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 23893/06

  J.L. v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 27454/11

  ORLIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 45422/13

  I.E. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 27810/07

  DORNEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 27782/10

  R.I.P. ET D.L.P. c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 23435/12

  DERKACHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 15139/05

  GEDERIM v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 48724/15

  ILGIZ KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 21533/07

  KRYAT v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 1661/08

  CHERNAYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 40657/04

  KLEYN AND ALEKSANDROVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  DIBIROVA v. RUSSIA