Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  Preliminary objections partially dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objections partially joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d ...

Wird zitiert von ... (72)Neu Zitiert selbst (25)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001; Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-...; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).

  Admittedly, in recent years the concept of "torture" has been interpreted in an evolutive manner and acts previously classified as inhuman and degrading treatment are now in some cases described as torture (see Selmouni, cited above, §§ 101 and 105; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001; Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV, and Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1855, § 79).

  It observes that the applicant's pre-trial detention ended on 9 January 2002 when the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo convicted him (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 30598/02

  ACCARDI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  The applicant was neither provided with an opportunity to follow the manner in which Mr I. was interrogated by the investigator on those occasions nor he was then or later provided with an opportunity to have questions put to Mr I. Furthermore, as Mr I."s statements to the investigator were not recorded on video, neither the applicant nor the judges were able to observe his demeanour under questioning and thus form their own impression of his reliability (see, a contrario, Accardi and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 30598/02, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 37019/97

  A.M. v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  As a rule, these rights require that the defendant be given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him or her either when the statements were made or at a later stage of the proceedings (see Saïdi v. France, judgment of 20 September 1993, Series A no. 261-C, p. 56, § 43, and A.M. v. Italy, no. 37019/97, § 25, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Admittedly, in recent years the concept of "torture" has been interpreted in an evolutive manner and acts previously classified as inhuman and degrading treatment are now in some cases described as torture (see Selmouni, cited above, §§ 101 and 105; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 33354/96

  Recht auf Konfrontation und Befragung von Mitangeklagten als Zeugen im Sinne der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  In this connection, the Court recalls that as a general rule the requirements of paragraphs 3 (d) and 1 of Article 6 will be satisfied if the defendant was given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge and question a witness against him at a certain stage of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, p. 12, § 34, and Lucà v. Italy, no. 33354/96, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 31.10.2001 - 47023/99

  SOLAKOV v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Finally, the conviction must not rest solely or decisively on the depositions of a witness whom the accused has had no opportunity to examine or to have examined either during the investigation or at trial (see Artner, p. 10, § 22; Delta, p. 16, § 37, both cited above; Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-A, p. 13, § 35 in fine; Solakov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 47023/99, § 57 in fine, ECHR 2001-X; and Rachdad, cited above, § 23 in fine).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  Inasmuch as the applicant's claim relates to the finding of that violation, the Court reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.04.1991 - 12398/86

  ASCH v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 28.08.1992 - 13161/87

  ARTNER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 19.12.1990 - 11444/85

  DELTA c. FRANCE
• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

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

  Vorbringen nach Artikel 3 der Konvention muss der Gerichtshof besonders gründlich prüfen (…siehe Matko ./. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43393/98, Rdnr. 100, Urteil vom 2. November 2006, und Vladimir Romanov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 41461/02, Rdnr. 59, 24. Juli 2008).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  K.J. therefore cannot be said to have failed to exhaust domestic remedies (see, for similar reasoning, Chorbadzhiyski and Krasteva v. Bulgaria, no. 54991/10, §§ 48-49, 2 April 2020; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 143, ECHR 2010 (with further references); and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008 (with further references)).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA

  The general legal prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would thus be ineffective in practice (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 78, 24 July 2008, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 116 and 119, ECHR 2010).

  Nevertheless, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 63, 24 July 2008, and Habimi, cited above, § 86).

 
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 14139/21

  NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  In such circumstances, the Court considers that the domestic authorities were given an opportunity to address his complaint subsequently raised before the Court and that this complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 52, 24 July 2008, and Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, §§ 43-45, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 33780/04

  KONONENKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court further reiterates that when an applicant has been convicted despite a potential infringement of his rights as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position in which he would have been had the requirements of that provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006).

  [1] See our joint concurring opinions appended to the following judgments: Vladimir Romanov v. Russia (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008); Ilatovskiy v. Russia (no. 6945/04, 9 July 2009); Fakiridou and Schina v. Greece (no. 6789/06, 14 November 2008); Lesjak v. Croatia (no. 25904/06, 18 February 2010); and Prezec v. Croatia (no. 48185/07, 15 October 2009).

• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 1111/02

  TROFIMOV v. RUSSIA

  In these circumstances, the Court should have reiterated - as it has done in other cases - that when an applicant has been convicted despite an infringement of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention, he should, as far as possible, be put in the position that he would have been in had the requirements of the provision not been disregarded, and that the most appropriate form of redress would, in principle, be trial de novo or the reopening of the proceedings, if requested (see Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210 in fine, ECHR 2005-IV; Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 264, 13 July 2006; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 118, 24 July 2008; and Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia, no. 30997/02, § 219, 25 September 2008).

  On account of its importance, such reasoning should then have been included in the operative provisions as well, for reasons which I have already explained to a certain extent in other separate opinions (see for example, the joint concurring opinion I appended with Judge Malinverni to the Vladimir Romanov v. Russia judgment (no. 41461/02, 24 July 2008) as well as my concurring opinion in Polufakin and Chernyshev v. Russia (no. 30997/02, 25 September 2008).

• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36658/05

  MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Doorson v. the Netherlands, no. 20524/92, ECHR 1996-II, § 76, followed among others by Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 21363/93 and others, ECHR 1997-III, § 55; AM v. Italy, no. 37019/97, ECHR 1999-IX; Lucà, cited above, § 40; P.S. v. Germany, no. 33900/96, § 24, 20 December 2001; and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 100, 24 July 2008.
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15

  M.A. c. FRANCE

  En effet, même si dans ce type d'affaires elle est disposée à examiner d'un Å“il plus critique les conclusions des juridictions nationales (El-Masri c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], n° 39630/09, § 155, CEDH 2012), il lui faut néanmoins disposer d'éléments convaincants pour pouvoir s'écarter des constatations auxquelles celles-ci sont parvenues (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Vladimir Romanov c. Russie, n° 41461/02, § 59, 24 juillet 2008 (...)) ".
• EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 66393/10

  TALI v. ESTONIA

  Recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 63, 24 July 2008; and Sharomov v. Russia, no. 8927/02, § 27, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 74010/11

  DEMBELE c. SUISSE

  En cas d'allégations sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention, la Cour doit se livrer à un examen particulièrement approfondi (Vladimir Romanov c. Russie, no 41461/02, § 59, 24 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09

  MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 1653/13

  Spanien verurteilt: ETA-Terroristen unmenschlich behandelt
• EGMR, 22.06.2017 - 12131/13

  Italien verurteilt: Folter durch Polizeigewalt
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 4268/04

  PANOVITS c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 29540/08

  GYÖRGYPÁL c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 38089/12

  SARWARI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 48475/09

  SAKIR c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 41298/21

  LÉOTARD c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10

  SABA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 56396/12

  PEREIRA CRUZ ET AUTRES c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 55555/08

  LELAS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 54991/10

  CHORBADZHIYSKI AND KRASTEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 20579/12

  GHEDIR ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4570/07

  TRAMPEVSKI v.
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 12294/07

  ZONTUL c. GRECE
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 32540/05

  VRBICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 25276/15

  VERZILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 40952/07

  ERSIN ERKUS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 76672/12

  HOALGA ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 40549/11

  POEDE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 28074/08

  FILIZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 54999/10 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 61504/10

  TOPAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04

  SHAMARDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19072/08

  HABIMI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 05.03.2013 - 6649/10

  OYGUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 34588/07

  DARRAJ c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.02.2009 - 36892/05

  N. B. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 76551/16

  SAMSSER KHAN c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 840/18

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 37368/15

  CHONG CORONADO c. ANDORRE
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 50443/14

  ARION c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 2204/07

  GUKOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 32163/13

  GHEORGHITA ET ALEXE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 28.04.2015 - 54999/10

  MILIC ET NIKEZIC c. MONTÉNÉGRO
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 15397/11

  ALBERTI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17588/08

  VOGIATZIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 37024/02

  SEVASTYANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  LOTAREV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

  YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 24655/18

  BARANIN AND VUKCEVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 25406/08

  TOPALOGLU v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  SAVIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33530/06

  POHOSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 11014/05

  SERBAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR - 31880/08 (anhängig)

  VECHERSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 2577/19 (anhängig)

  BAYGELDI v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 10178/18 (anhängig)

  TURAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 7148/06

  SHVEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 16088/06

  ZELIK AND KEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

  BAMBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2945/07

  GALOTSKIN v. GREECE
• EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 47190/12

  VASILOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 13312/08

  FELLNER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY