Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORBALA KISS v. HUNGARY

  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)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 59214/11

  Moreover, as regards the applicant's complaint about the adequacy of the investigation, originally raised under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court observes that this matter constitutes an issue falling under the procedural limb of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 59214/11

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 139, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)) This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 40246/19

  LÓZAY v. HUNGARY

  Indeed, the questioning of the police officers and the confrontation between them and the applicant could have contributed to the clarification of the events (see Kmetty, cited above, §§ 41-42; Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, § 37, 26 June 2012).
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 52924/09

  IOAN POP ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Se tournant vers les faits de l'espèce, la Cour note que, par les mesures qu'il avait prises, le requérant présentait un risque suffisamment grave et sérieux pour l'ordre public ou pour l'intégrité physique des policiers, risque qui a pu justifier l'usage qui a été fait de la force à son encontre (a contrario, Rosioru c. Roumanie, no 37554/06, § 63, 10 janvier 2012 et Borbála Kiss c. Hongrie, no 59214/11, § 36, 26 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY

  As regards the Government's submission concerning the applicant's failure to initiate private prosecution proceedings, the Court has held in a number of cases that applicants are not required, with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, to bring substitute private prosecutions, essentially because to do so would constitute the pursuit of a legal avenue that would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019; M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017; R.B. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 60-65; and Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, §§ 25-27, 26 June 2012; see also Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 95, 2 November 2006).