Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIULIANI ET GAGGIO c. ITALIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violations de l'art. 2 (volet matériel) Violation de l'art. 2 (volet procédural) Non-violation de l'art. 38 Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GIULIANI AND GAGGIO v. ITALY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  No violations of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 38 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  In doing so it cannot, detached from the events at issue, substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

  To hold otherwise "would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and those of others" (McCann and Others, cited above, § 200; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 138 to 140, ECHR 2005-II).

  For the Court to hold otherwise would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law-enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and those of others (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-40, ECHR 2005-II; McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 200, Series A no. 324; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 66, ECHR 2004-XI; and Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-97, 13 March 2007).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324).

  As the Court has previously held, the Convention does not oblige Contracting Parties to incorporate its provisions into national law and it is not the role of the Court to examine in abstracto the compatibility of national legislative or constitutional provisions with the requirements of the Convention (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324).

  For the Court to hold otherwise would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law-enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and those of others (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-40, ECHR 2005-II; McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 200, Series A no. 324; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 66, ECHR 2004-XI; and Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-97, 13 March 2007).

• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 35072/97

  SIMSEK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  Where lethal force is used in the course of a police or military operation, it is necessary to examine not merely whether the use of force was legitimate but also whether the operation was regulated and organised in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible any risk to the life of the persons involved (see eg, Simsek and Others v. Turkey, nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97, § 106, 26 July 2005).

  One needs only to compare the present case with those examined by the Court in McCann and Others (cited above); Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI); Makaratzis (cited above); Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII); Simsek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97, 26 July 2005); and ErdoÄ?an and Others v. Turkey (no. 19807/92, 25 April 2006).

 
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  For the Court to hold otherwise would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law-enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and those of others (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-40, ECHR 2005-II; McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 200, Series A no. 324; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 66, ECHR 2004-XI; and Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-97, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  One needs only to compare the present case with those examined by the Court in McCann and Others (cited above); Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus (9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI); Makaratzis (cited above); Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII); Simsek and Others v. Turkey (nos. 35072/97 and 37194/97, 26 July 2005); and ErdoÄ?an and Others v. Turkey (no. 19807/92, 25 April 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 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 clinical findings, including the cause of death (as regards autopsies, see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; as regards witnesses, see, for example, Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109; as regards forensic evidence, see, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  The investigation must be, inter alia, thorough, impartial and rigorous (see McCann and Others, cited above, §§ 161-163, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  It is not possible to reduce the variety of situations which might occur to a bare check-list of acts of investigation or other simplified criteria (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101-10, ECHR 1999-IV; Kaya v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 89-91; Güleç v. Turkey 27 July 1998, §§ 79-81, Reports 1998-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 80, ECHR 2000-VI; and Buldan v. Turkey, no. 28298/95, § 83, 20 April 2004).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-04, Reports 1998-VI; Çakıcı, cited above, §§ 80, 87 and 106; Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 23458/02

  The first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps within its internal legal order to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 62, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 28298/95

  BULDAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI