Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KUMMER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11
• EGMR, 27.03.2014 - 32133/11
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 32133/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 101-02, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  Proceedings that can only result in the award of compensation to be paid by the State, but not in the punishment of those responsible for the ill-treatment, cannot be considered as satisfying the procedural requirement of Article 3 in cases of wilful ill-treatment of persons who are within the control of agents of the State (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 130, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009).

 
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 34334/04

  ASHOT HARUTYUNYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  Application of measures of restraint to an applicant in a non-public setting may still give rise to a violation of Article 3 in a situation where no serious risks to security could be proved to exist (see Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, § 125, 15 June 2010, referring to Hénaf v. France, cited above, §§ 51 and 56).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence (see Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 85, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  The Court reiterates that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  The Court reiterates that 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 Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  It reiterates its well-established case-law that in cases where an individual has an arguable claim under 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 Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-04, and Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 105-06, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  Publicity may be a relevant factor in assessing whether a treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, but the Court does not consider that absence of publicity will necessarily prevent a given treatment from falling into that category: it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 32, Series A no. 26).