Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIULIANI ET GAGGIO c. ITALIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a MRK
  Non-violations de l'art. 2 (volet matériel) Non-violation de l'art. 2 (volet procédural) Non-violation de l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 38 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a MRK
  No violations of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 38 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• skmr.ch (Kurzaufsatz mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Die menschenrechtlichen Vorgaben für den polizeilichen Schusswaffengebrauch

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy

  [29.09.2010]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 23458/02
• EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02
• EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2011, 1441

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (34)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  The authorities must take whatever reasonable steps they can to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of the clinical findings, including the cause of death (as regards autopsies, see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; on the subject of witnesses, see, for example, Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; as regards forensic examinations, see, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 2 may imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 67 in fine, ECHR 2002-VIII; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 50, ECHR 2009-...; and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 128, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  The primary duty on the State to secure the right to life entails, in particular, putting in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework defining the limited circumstances in which law enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the relevant international standards (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-XI, and Bakan, cited above, § 49; see also the relevant paragraphs of the UN Principles, paragraph 154 above).

 
• EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 38000/05

  R.K. AND A.K. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  As the Court had had occasion to state (the Government referred, mutatis mutandis, to R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38000/05, § 36, 30 September 2008), whether or not an investigation had been conducted properly had to be assessed ex ante, on the basis of the facts known when the decision was taken, and not ex post facto.
• EGMR, 23.11.1999 - 33747/96

  BROMILEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  The Court has held that a positive obligation will arise where the authorities knew or ought to have known of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals and failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Bromiley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 33747/96, 23 November 1999; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; and Branko Tomasic, cited above, §§ 50-51).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  Lastly, it should not be overlooked that the Court had judged domestic investigations to be "effective" where errors had been committed by the authorities (the Government referred to Grams, cited above, and Menson and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 06.05.1985 - 8658/79

  Bönisch ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  He had been appointed by the prosecuting authorities and not by the investigating judge and was therefore not acting as a neutral and impartial auxiliary of the latter (see, conversely, Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985, § 33, Series A no. 92, and Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 31930/04, § 47, ECHR 2007-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  In this area the obligation they enter into under Article 11 of the Convention is an obligation as to measures to be taken and not as to results to be achieved (see Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, § 34, Series A no. 139; Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, § 35, ECHR 2006-XIII; and Protopapa v. Turkey, no. 16084/90, § 108, 24 February 2009).
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  The presence of an expert who had preconceived ideas on the subject was therefore far from reassuring (as regards the expert's role in judicial proceedings, see Brandstetter v. Austria, 28 August 1991, § 59, Series A no. 211).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2011 - 23458/02

  What distinguished the present case from Ergi v. Turkey (28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV), OÄ?ur v. Turkey ([GC], no. 21594/93, ECHR 1999-III) and Makaratzis (cited above) was the fact that, in the context of the G8, the planning of operations had inevitably been incomplete and approximate, given that the demonstrators could either have remained peaceful or have engaged in violence.
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 26775/02

  SOTTANI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 5529/05

  PATYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 6293/04

  MIRILASHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

  BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien
• EGMR, 05.10.1999 - 33677/96

  Umfang der staatlichen Ermittlungspflicht bei Verursachung des Todes eines …
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 71545/12

  L.E. c. GRÈCE

  En deuxième lieu, dans certaines circonstances, l'État se trouve devant l'obligation de prendre des mesures concrètes pour protéger les victimes avérées ou potentielles de traitements contraires à l'article 4. Comme les articles 2 et 3 de la Convention, l'article 4 peut, dans certaines circonstances, imposer à l'État ce type d'obligation (voir, mutatis mutandis, Giuliani et Gaggio c. Italie [GC], no 23458/02, § 244, CEDH 2011 (extraits); Osman c. Royaume-Uni, 28 octobre 1998, § 115, Recueil 1998-VIII, Amadayev c. Russie, no 18114/06, § 68, 3 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 37795/13

  TEKIN ET ARSLAN c. BELGIQUE

  Certes, la Convention et en particulier son article 2 n'impliquent pas le droit d'obtenir que des tiers soient poursuivis ou condamnés pénalement (Giuliani et Gaggio c. Italie [GC], no 23458/02, § 306, CEDH 2011 (extraits), et Maslova c. Russie, no 15980/12, § 81, 14 février 2017).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 54508/12

  DINK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La jurisprudence de la Cour en matière de la protection procédurale du droit à la vie (article 2 de la Convention) est claire et abondante (voir, pour les principes généraux, Mustafa Tunç et Fecire Tunç c. Turquie [GC], no 24014/05, § 98-105, 14 avril 2015, et pour l'obligation de célérité et de diligence de l'enquête, Armani Da Silva c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 5878/08, § 237, 30 mars 2016, et Giuliani et Gaggio c. Italie [GC], no 23458/02, § 305, CEDH 2011 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1441/10

  RAMAZANOVA ET ALEKSEYEV c. RUSSIE

  Appréciation de la Cour 89. La Cour rappelle d'emblée que l'article 2 de la Convention impose à l'État deux obligations matérielles: l'obligation négative de s'abstenir de donner la mort « intentionnellement ", limitée par les exceptions énumérées, et l'obligation positive de prendre les mesures nécessaires à la protection de la vie des personnes relevant de sa juridiction (Lambert et autres c. France [GC], no 46043/14, § 117, CEDH 2015, avec les références citées, et Giuliani et Gaggio c. Italie [GC], no 23458/02, § 175, CEDH 2011, avec les références citées).