Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHERKASOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Cherkasov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  As to the seriousness of the acts of ill-treatment complained of, the Court reiterates that in order to determine how a particular form of ill-treatment should be qualified, it must have regard to the distinctions embodied in Article 3 (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83 and 84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni, cited above, § 105; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts), as well as Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 55, ECHR 2006-III).

 
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  The Court further recalls that, while it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious about taking on the role of a first­instance tribunal of fact, it is nevertheless not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002 and, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  On the basis of all the material placed before it, the Court finds that neither the authorities at the domestic level nor the Government in the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court have advanced any convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant's injuries (see, by contrast, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, §§ 29-31, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  The Court further recalls that, while it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious about taking on the role of a first­instance tribunal of fact, it is nevertheless not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002 and, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, §§ 33 and 34, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37966/07

  ANTAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as a basis for their decisions (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 108, 26 January 2006, with further references, and Cherkasov v. Russia, no. 7039/04, § 69, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA

  That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or as the basis of their decisions (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 108, 26 January 2006, with further references and Cherkasov v. Russia, no. 7039/04, § 69, 18 October 2011).