Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2013,13913
EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,13913)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.06.2013 - 6087/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,13913)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Juni 2013 - 6087/03 (https://dejure.org/2013,13913)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,13913) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

    Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (14)  

  • EGMR, 06.02.2014 - 2689/12

    SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA

    Had there been any imprecision on the part of the national authorities in establishing an accurate diagnosis, or indeed had they subsequently failed to detect any changes in the applicant's condition, the State would have to bear responsibility for such an omission, as it is its obligation to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty receive the requisite medical assistance (see, for identical reasoning, Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 155, 25 June 2013).

    The Court is not persuaded by such an argument, and does not consider that the applicant's special needs were thereby attended to or that the State has complied with its obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in that respect (see, for similar reasoning, Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 161, 25 June 2013).

  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05

    TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE

    Pour l'établissement des faits allégués, la Cour se sert du critère de la preuve «au-delà de tout doute raisonnable» ; une telle preuve peut néanmoins résulter d'un faisceau d'indices, ou de présomptions non réfutées, suffisamment graves, précis et concordants (Berktay c. Turquie, no 22493/93, § 165, 1er mars 2001, Jasinski c. Pologne, no 72976/01, § 35, 6 décembre 2007, Grimailovs c. Lettonie, no 6087/03, § 101, 25 juin 2013).
  • EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

    HOLODENKO v. LATVIA

    In the case of Grimailovs v. Latvia (no. 6087/03, 25 June 2013) the Court, when considering an allegation of ill-treatment by the police, was confronted with similar difficulties in establishing the facts.
  • EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

    MIHHAILOV v. ESTONIA

    The investigation therefore lacked the necessary appearance of independence as it was carried out by a police officer institutionally linked to those targeted by it (compare, among others, urÄ?evic v. Croatia, cited above, § 87; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 112, 25 June 2013; and Kummer v. the Czech Republic, no. 32133/11, §§ 85 and 86, 25 July 2013, where the Court found that the standards of an independent investigation had not been respected when, in substance, the police had been charged with investigating allegations relating to their own officers).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

    ASALYA v. TURKEY

    The Court notes in this connection that the inaccessibility of the sanitation facilities raises a particular concern under Article 3 of the Convention, in particular as the applicant was dependent entirely on the good will of the police officers to assist him, on account of the structural deficiencies at the place of detention (see Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 158, 25 June 2013).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 19437/05

    ANTONOVS v. LATVIA

    Conversely, in some other cases, where the Government did raise such an objection, the Court did not find it necessary to examine their non-exhaustion argument, because the applicants" complaints about medical care in prison were inadmissible on other grounds under Article 35 of the Convention (see Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 33798/05, § 35, 11 May 2010; Buks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 18605/03, § 38, 4 September 2012; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 128, 25 June 2013; and Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37543/06, § 46, 12 December 2013).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 60429/12

    ÄEURBELE v. LATVIA

    The relevant parts of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Latvia on 1 March 2010, have been outlined in Grimailovs v. Latvia (no. 6087/03, § 78, 25 June 2013).
  • EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 25147/07

    BdRZI?...S v. LATVIA

    Both, the police and the court, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code, were apparently existing remedies for this type of complaint (see paragraph 59 above) (see, mutatis mutandis, Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, § 118, 25 June 2013, and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 77, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 8550/03

    SAPOZKOVS v. LATVIA

    The Court reiterates that it has spelled out the applicable principles in cases relating to allegations of ill-treatment while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police and the State's obligation to investigate such allegations on numerous occasions in cases against Latvia (see Vovrusko v. Latvia, no. 11065/02, §§ 41-43, 11 December 2012; Timofejevi v. Latvia, no. 45393/04, §§ 92-95, 11 December 2012; Sorokins and Sorokina v. Latvia, no. 45476/04, § 95, 28 May 2013; Grimailovs v. Latvia, no. 6087/03, §§ 100-106, 25 June 2013; and Holodenko v. Latvia, no. 17215/07, § 64, 2 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 14920/05

    DJUNDIKS v. LATVIA

    The relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminalprocesa kodekss), in force until 1 October 2005, have already been quoted in Grimailovs v. Latvia (no. 6087/03, § 84, 25 June 2013).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 42660/11

    ANDERSEN c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 27122/10

    VINOGRADOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR - 9044/17 (anhängig)

    HAVIK v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  • EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 31535/12

    GASI?ƒSKI c. POLOGNE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht