Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAZJAKS v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (struck out of the list) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Finally, with regard to effective investigation of the applicant's complaints about ill-treatment, the Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated by the police or other such agents of the State unlawfully and in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, amongst many other authorities, Kudla, cited above, § 157), although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their Convention obligations under this provision (see Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions as well as the applicant's specific allegations (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 80, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 61638/00

  IGORS DMITRIJEVS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  Moreover, it appears from the file in the present case that the authorities indeed examined the applicant's submissions and replied to him, despite the fact that his letters had been written in Russian and not in Latvian (see Igors Dmitrijevs v. Latvia, no. 61638/00, § 85, 30 November 2006).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 7510/04

  KONTROVA c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  Further, the Court has held that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage should as a matter of principle be available as part of the range of possible remedies for a breach of Articles 2 and 3, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention (see, as concerns a violation of Article 3 on account of lack of adequate medical care of a prisoner, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III; and, as concerns a violation of Article 2 on account of State's failure to intervene to safeguard the lives of the applicant's children Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, § 64, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.12.2004 - 71074/01

  MENTZEN c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  The Court reiterates that linguistic freedom as such is not amongst the rights and freedoms governed by the Convention, and that with the exception of the specific rights stated in Articles 5 § 2 and 6 § 3 (a) and (e), the Convention per se does not guarantee the right to use a particular language in communications with public authorities or the right to receive information in a language of one's choice (see Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  Also, even if a single remedy does not by itself entirely satisfy the requirements of Article 13, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may do so (see, for example, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 113, Series A no. 61).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 13427/87

  RAFFINERIES GRECQUES STRAN ET STRATIS ANDREADIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 71572/01

  The Court reiterates that it is not for the Convention bodies to cure of their own motion any shortcomings or lack of precision in the respondent Government's arguments (see Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 35, Series A no. 301-B).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.11.2006 - 6923/03

  MELNIC v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 54, 2 December 2004, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 74, 19 October 2010).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53281/08

  JEGOROVS v. LATVIA

  In previous cases the Court has been reluctant to accept that such a complaint was an effective remedy where the prosecution authorities were aware of a person's situation in detention but failed to act to remedy that situation (see Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, §§ 88 and 89, 19 October 2010, and Melnitis, cited above, § 49).

  Consequently, provided that it respects the rights protected by the Convention, each Contracting State is at liberty to impose and regulate the use of its official language (see, mutatis mutandis, Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII; Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 141, 19 October 2010; and Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey, nos.

• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 44460/16

  O'SULLIVAN McCARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision (see Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 48, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 127, 19 October 2010, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt." Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 54, 2 December 2004; Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 74, 19 October 2010; Gharibashvili v. Georgia, no. 11830/03, § 56, 29 July 2008; and Dvalishvili v. Georgia, no. 19634/07, § 39, 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 60244/12

  KUZU ET AYAR c. TURQUIE

  À l'exception des droits spécifiques énoncés dans les articles 5 § 2 (droit d'une personne d'être informée, dans le plus court délai et dans une langue qu'elle comprend, des raisons de son arrestation) et 6 § 3 a) et e) (droit d'une personne d'être informée, dans le plus court délai, de la nature et de la cause de l'accusation portée contre elle, et droit de se faire assister par un interprète si elle ne comprend pas ou ne parle pas la langue employée à l'audience), la Convention ne garantit pas le droit de se servir de la langue de son choix dans les rapports avec les autorités publiques, que ce soient des autorités administratives (Mentzen (déc.), précitée, Baylac-Ferrer et Suarez (déc.), précitée, Kemal Taskin et autres, précité, § 56, Birk-Levy c. France (déc.), no 39426/06, 21 septembre 2010, et Bazjaks c. Lettonie, no 71572/01, § 141, 19 octobre 2010) ou judiciaires (Isop c. Autriche, no 808/60, décision de la Commission du 8 mars 1962, Annuaire 5, p. 108, Zana c. Turquie, décision de la Commission, no 18954/91, 21 octobre 1993, non publiée, et Kozlovs (déc.), précitée).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 34133/17

  ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In view of that conclusion, it cannot be said that the authorities were under an obligation to investigate further the applicant's allegations (see Bouyid, cited above, § 116; Yagci and Özcan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 83646/17, §§ 20-26, 16 October 2018; Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 79, 19 October 2010).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 53100/11

  SARAÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour ne dispose ainsi d'aucun élément de nature à laisser raisonnablement penser que ces requérantes aient fait l'objet de mauvais traitements ni à remettre en question la manière dont les autorités judiciaires nationales ont agi en l'espèce, dans le cadre de leur devoir de mener une enquête effective à leur égard (pour les critères relatifs à l'existence d'un grief défendable et les obligations procédurales, voir également Bazjaks c. Lettonie, no 71572/01, § 79, 19 octobre 2010, Maļinovskis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 48435/07, § 53, 4 mars 2014, et Bouyid, précité, §§ 114-123 et 124 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Peker c. Turquie (déc.), no 53014/99, 14 septembre 2000, Firat Koç c. Turquie (déc.), no 24937/94, 14 novembre 2000, et Bülent Barmaksiz c. Turquie (déc.), no 1004/03, 23 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 04.09.2018 - 12261/10

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE

  A la lumière de cette conclusion, en l'absence de griefs défendables, l'obligation positive de mener une enquête efficace ne s'imposait pas aux autorités nationales dans les circonstances de la présente affaire (Bazjaks c. Lettonie, no 71572/01, § 79, 19 octobre 2010, et Maļinovskis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 48435/07, § 53, 4 mars 2014).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 83646/17

  YAGCI ET ÖZCAN c. TURQUIE

  La Cour ne dispose donc d'aucun élément susceptible d'engendrer un soupçon raisonnable que le policier mis en cause, d'ailleurs identifié et interrogé par le procureur, avait infligé aux requérants des coups, ni de remettre en question la manière avec laquelle les autorités judiciaires nationales ont agi en l'espèce dans le cadre de leur devoir de mener une enquête effective (pour les critères sur l'existence d'un grief défendable et les obligations procédurales, voir également Bazjaks c. Lettonie, no 71572/01, § 79, 19 octobre 2010, Maļinovskis c. Lettonie (déc.), no 48435/07, § 53, 4 mars 2014, et Bouyid, précité, §§ 114-123 et 124 ; par rapport aux faits de la cause, voir également, mutatis mutandis, Peker c. Turquie (déc.), no 53014/99, 14 septembre 2000, Firat Koç c. Turquie (déc.), no 24937/94, 14 novembre 2000, Bülent Barmaksiz c. Turquie (déc.), no 1004/03, 23 octobre 2007).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 72252/11

  LESCIUKAITIS v. LITHUANIA

  The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision (see Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 48, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 127, 19 October 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 38068/08

  PUCE v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 14610/05

  LATVIJAS JAUNO ZEMNIEKU APVIENTBA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 21694/06

  KRONKALNS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 37038/09

  TAYLOR v. ESTONIA