Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2004,38535
EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.07.2004 - 47940/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38535)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Juli 2004 - 47940/99 (https://dejure.org/2004,38535)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,38535) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    BALOGH v. HUNGARY

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Préliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (63)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.

    The requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 42, § 115).

    The majority of my colleagues in the Chamber has rightly pointed out that it is well-established in the case-law of the Court that where an individual is taken into police 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, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.

    The majority of my colleagues in the Chamber has rightly pointed out that it is well-established in the case-law of the Court that where an individual is taken into police 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, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.
     
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    For its part, the Court is satisfied that the investigations conducted were thorough and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of any State agent found to be responsible in the light of the evidence gathered (compare and contrast, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 130-136, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    However, the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 122).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

    ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    In such cases, proof "beyond reasonable doubt" was required, which may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000-VI; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
    The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 14. In its opinion, and having regard to the all the materials in the case file, there is no substantiation of the applicant's allegation that he was discriminated against in the enjoyment of any of the Convention rights relied on (compare and contrast Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 155 to 175, ECHR 2004-).
  • EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

    MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

    To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly redressing the impugned state of affairs and must offer reasonable prospects of success (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004; and Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00

    MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA

    The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 7334/13

    MURSIC v. CROATIA

    To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly resolving the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht