Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set out in Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, concerning allegations of ill-treatment in police custody or detention facilities).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 77018/01

  POLYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, the Court has previously stated that Article 3 of the Convention does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest, that such force must not be excessive (see, among others, Polyakov v. Russia, no. 77018/01, § 25, 29 January 2009, and Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 80, 30 May 2013), and that "such force may be used only if it is indispensable and must not be excessive" (see, for instance, Sakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 80, 10 November 2015).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set out in Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, concerning allegations of ill-treatment in police custody or detention facilities).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02

  BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  Thus, the authorities should have been able to plan their operation (see Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 32, 29 November 2007, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  The burden of proof in such a case 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; Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; and Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 90, 23 February 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  While not every investigation should necessarily come to a conclusion which coincides with a claimant's account of events, any investigation should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  Thus, the authorities should have been able to plan their operation (see Balçik and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, § 32, 29 November 2007, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  While not every investigation should necessarily come to a conclusion which coincides with a claimant's account of events, any investigation should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74552/01

  OYA ATAMAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  As regards Mr Annenkov, Ms Suprunova, Ms Guseva and Ms Zakharova, the above findings concerning the unjustified use of force against them (paragraphs 87-91 above) suffice for the Court to conclude that there was also a disproportionate "interference" under Article 11 of the Convention, in particular in so far as it entailed termination of their participation in the gathering (compare Oya Ataman v. Turkey, no. 74552/01, §§ 38-44, ECHR 2006-XIV, where the Court found that the use by the police of pepper spray to disperse a non-authorised demonstration had been disproportionate, even though it was acknowledged that the event could have disrupted the flow of traffic).
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  DAVITIDZE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2014 - 19554/05

  TARANENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 8077/08

  SAKIR KAÇMAZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, Article 3 does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest (see Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 79, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 23158/20

  MAKARASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Even assuming that the second applicant had indeed been among those who had moved from the pedestrian area in front of the Parliament building to a road used for traffic, no assessment was made by the domestic courts of whether that blocking of the road had been intentional or a result of circumstances on the ground, such as the number of demonstrators and the related question of the "lawfulness" of the police demands (see, for instance, Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 138, 25 July 2017, and Navalnyy and Gunko, cited above, § 69, 10 November 2020).
• EGMR, 06.09.2022 - 67200/12

  BODALEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously noted that, at least in 2009, there were uncertainties, inter alia, as to whether recourse to the review procedure as amended in 2008 was (deemed to be) subject to any time-limit (see Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 109, 25 July 2017), namely the three-month period mentioned above.

 
• EGMR, 10.11.2020 - 75186/12

  Russland muss Nawalny Entschädigung zahlen

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, Article 3 does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest (see Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 79, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 76813/16

  KUCHTA AND METEL v. POLAND

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, the Court reiterates that Article 3 does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest (see Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 79, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17054/08

  GREMINA v. RUSSIA

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, Article 3 does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest (see Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 79, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR - 78686/17 (anhängig)

  VASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017; and Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, 25 July 2017:.
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 17354/19

  BOLKVADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  While it is undisputed that the Criminal Code contained provisions making it a criminal offence for a public official to violate the principle of equality and the right to freedom of expression, the thrust of the applicants" complaints at the domestic level and before the Court concerned the scope of their right to freedom of expression, within the context of the prohibition of discrimination, and the related question of whether the interference therewith had been justified (contrast and compare Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, § 106, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR - 11146/16 (anhängig)

  GRITSEVICH AND KIMAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the arrest on 29 June 2015 and the prosecution against the applicants? In particular, was the interference "necessary in a democratic society"? Did the domestic authorities adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017, and Annenkov and Others v. Russia, no. 31475/10, §§ 131-39, 25 July 2017), in particular having regard to the requirements imposed by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in Ruling No. 21 of 27 June 2013?.
• EGMR - 63471/14 (anhängig)

  KIBRIS TÜRK ORTA EǦITIM ÖǦRETMENLER SENDIKASI v. TÜRKIYE

  d) Par ailleurs, les juridictions internes ont-elles effectué une mise en balance des différents intérêts en présence, ont-elles fourni des motifs pertinents et suffisants relatifs à l'existence de « l'ingérence'et à sa justification, et ont-elles fondé leurs conclusions sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (voir Makhmoudov c. Russie, no 35082/04, §§ 63-65, 26 juillet 2007, Annenkov et autres c. Russie, no 31475/10, §§ 131 et 134-139, 25 juillet 2017, et Ögrü et autres c. Turquie, nos 60087/10 et 2 autres, §§ 64-71, 19 décembre 2017) ?.
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 25238/08

  SARSEMBAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 16694/13

  ASAINOV AND SIBIRYAK v. RUSSIA