Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,32838
EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,32838)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.12.2000 - 30873/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,32838)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Dezember 2000 - 30873/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,32838)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,32838) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    EGMEZ v. CYPRUS

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5-1 No violation of Art. 5-2 No violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 13 No separate issue under Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 Non-violation de l'art. 5-2 Non-violation de l'art. 5-3 Non-violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 13 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 6-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral ...

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 ... (60)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    The Court also recalls that, where an individual has an arguable claim that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, "a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible" (see the Aksoy judgment cited above, p. 2287, § 98, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V).

    These conclusions are based on the well-established principles that have been summed up by the Court in paragraphs 64 and 65 of its judgment referring to the Aksoy v. Turkey judgment (18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI) and Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V).

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30985/96

    HASSAN ET TCHAOUCH c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    In the case of Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI), the Court in paragraph 96 reiterated its approach by saying, inter alia, that "The remedy required by Article 13 must be 'effective' in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State".
  • EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

    KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    It is these weaknesses that led this Court to conclude that convictions were regarded as obtained contrary to the basic principles of justice even in jurisdictions where the hearsay rule does not exist, when the conviction was based on the evidence of an anonymous witness (see the Kostovski v. the Netherlands judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, and the Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158).
     
  • EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

    LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    As a rule those rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when he was making the statement or at a later stage in the proceedings (see the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, and the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

    ASCH v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    As a rule those rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him either when he was making the statement or at a later stage in the proceedings (see the Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, and the Lüdi v. Switzerland judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238).
  • EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

    BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    It is these weaknesses that led this Court to conclude that convictions were regarded as obtained contrary to the basic principles of justice even in jurisdictions where the hearsay rule does not exist, when the conviction was based on the evidence of an anonymous witness (see the Kostovski v. the Netherlands judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, and the Bricmont v. Belgium judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 158).
  • EGMR, 26.10.1984 - 9186/80

    DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    As regards the applicant's contentions concerning the taking of evidence by the delegates, the Court recalls that personal impartiality is to be presumed until there is proof to the contrary (see the De Cubber v. Belgium judgment of 26 October 1984, Series A no. 86, p. 14, § 25).
  • EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

    MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    The Court recalls that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention requires a procedure of a judicial character with guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, pp. 11-12, § 22, and the Bouamar v. Belgium judgment of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 24, § 60).
  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    The detailed report of the Ombudsman should not be ignored when examining the remedies under Cypriot law in their aggregate (see the Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, pp. 30-32, §§ 80-84).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
    According to the case-law, an action for compensation is an effective remedy to be exhausted in respect of alleged ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see the Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C; M. v. France, application no. 10078/82, Commission decision of 13 December 1984, DR 41, p. 103; McQuiston v. the United Kingdom, application no. 11208/84, Commission decision of 4 March 1986, DR 46, p. 182; and Ribitsch v. Austria, application no. 17544/90, Commission decision of 4 May 1993, DR 74, p. 129), and there was no evidence of an administrative practice of ill-treatment.
  • EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

    BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

    Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

    Weitere Faktoren sind u.a. der Zweck, zu dem die Behandlung erfolgte, die dahinterstehende Absicht oder die Beweggründe dafür (…vgl. u.a. Aksoy ./. Türkei, 18. Dezember 1996,Rdnr. 64, Berichte 1996-VI; Egmez ./. Zypern, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30873/96, Rdnr. 78, ECHR 2000-XII;… und Krastanov ./. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 50222/99, Rdnr. 53, 30. September 2004), sowie der Kontext, in dem sie erfolgte, z.B. in einer sehr angespannten und emotional aufgeladenen Atmosphäre (…vgl. z.B. Selmouni, a.a.O., Rdnr. 104 und Egmez, a.a.O.).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 39630/09

    El Masri klagt gegen Mazedonien

    Parmi les autres facteurs à considérer figurent le but dans lequel le traitement a été infligé ainsi que l'intention ou la motivation qui l'ont inspiré (voir, entre autres, Aksoy c. Turquie, 18 décembre 1996, § 64, Recueil 1996-VI, Egmez c. Chypre, no 30873/96, § 78, CEDH 2000-XII, et Krastanov c. Bulgarie, no 50222/99, § 53, 30 septembre 2004).
  • EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

    BOUYID v. BELGIUM

    Further factors include the purpose for which the ill-treatment was inflicted, together with the intention or motivation behind it (compare, inter alia, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-VI; Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004; see also, among other authorities, Gäfgen, cited above, § 88; and El-Masri, cited above, § 196), although the absence of an intention to humiliate or debase the victim cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, among other authorities, V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX; and Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, § 114).
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