Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,55711
EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55711)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2011 - 34461/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55711)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2011 - 34461/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,55711)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55711) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 3 of the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

    The issue in the present case concerns the rebuttal of a presumption (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court further reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 14166/02

    ESER CEYLAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed the Government's preliminary objections in similar cases (see, for example, Dur v. Turkey, no. 34027/03, § 26, 18 September 2008; Eser Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 14166/02, § 23, 13 December 2007; SalmanoÄ?lu and Polattas v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 72, 17 March 2009; and Arif Çelebi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 3076/05 and 26739/05, § 53, 6 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 34027/03

    DUR v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed the Government's preliminary objections in similar cases (see, for example, Dur v. Turkey, no. 34027/03, § 26, 18 September 2008; Eser Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 14166/02, § 23, 13 December 2007; SalmanoÄ?lu and Polattas v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 72, 17 March 2009; and Arif Çelebi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 3076/05 and 26739/05, § 53, 6 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2009 - 15828/03

    SALMANOGLU AND POLATTAS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed the Government's preliminary objections in similar cases (see, for example, Dur v. Turkey, no. 34027/03, § 26, 18 September 2008; Eser Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 14166/02, § 23, 13 December 2007; SalmanoÄ?lu and Polattas v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 72, 17 March 2009; and Arif Çelebi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 3076/05 and 26739/05, § 53, 6 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

    BEKER v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    This investigation, as with that under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 53, 24 March 2009; and Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 73, 20 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 3076/05

    ARIF ÇELEBI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court reiterates that it has already examined and dismissed the Government's preliminary objections in similar cases (see, for example, Dur v. Turkey, no. 34027/03, § 26, 18 September 2008; Eser Ceylan v. Turkey, no. 14166/02, § 23, 13 December 2007; SalmanoÄ?lu and Polattas v. Turkey, no. 15828/03, § 72, 17 March 2009; and Arif Çelebi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 3076/05 and 26739/05, § 53, 6 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 18893/05

    ÖZCAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    This investigation, as with that under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 53, 24 March 2009; and Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 73, 20 April 2010).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 34461/07
    The Court further reiterates that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured by the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused and to produce evidence casting doubt on the victim's allegations, particularly if those allegations were corroborated by medical reports, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

    YUSIV v. LITHUANIA

    Therefore, even if the applicant had indeed been swearing at the officers, had fallen to the ground, and had attempted to kick or bite them, the Court is not convinced that it was strictly necessary for several trained police officers to resort to physical force of such severity as in the present case - at least eighteen blows - in order to make the applicant more cooperative (see also Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Yavuz Çelik v. Turkey, no. 34461/07, § 53, 26 July 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht