Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  E. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 No separate issue under Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 33218/96
• EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  As set out in Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], (no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V), negligence arises in specific categories of situations.

  Thus a failure, over four and a half years, to protect children from serious neglect and abuse of which the local authority were aware disclosed a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the case of Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V, §§ 74-75).

  Furthermore, in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be available as part of the range of redress (see Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V, § 109; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, (Sect. 3), ECHR 2001-III, § 129).

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  The question to be decided in such cases is the level of just satisfaction, in respect of both past and future pecuniary loss, which it is necessary to award to each applicant, the matter to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (former Article 50) judgment of 6 November 1989, Series A no. 38, p. 9, § 15; Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (Article 41), judgment of 25 July 2000, §§ 22-23).
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  Furthermore, in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be available as part of the range of redress (see Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, ECHR 2001-V, § 109; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, (Sect. 3), ECHR 2001-III, § 129).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  Criminal law liability is distinct from international law responsibility under the Convention, this Court not being concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence under domestic law (see, for example, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001, § 284).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  The applicants" complaints in this regard are therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; the Kaya judgment, cited above, § 107, and Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2442, § 113).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  As regards the applicants" claims for pecuniary loss, the Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, judgment of 13 June 1994 (Article 50), Series A no. 285-C, pp.

• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 35810/09

  O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND

  Au paragraphe 162 de l'arrêt, la majorité estime que le grief tiré de l'article 3 tient au fait que l'État n'a pas mis en place des « mécanismes effectifs de détection et de signalement des sévices éventuels respectivement par et à un organe contrôlé par l'État ", mesure qui, selon elle, aurait sans doute pallié, ou au moins réduit au minimum, le risque ou le préjudice subi (elle renvoie à cet égard à l'affaire E. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 33218/96, 26 novembre 2002).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 41526/10

  DORDEVIC c. CROATIE

  Ces dispositions doivent permettre une protection efficace, notamment des enfants et autres personnes vulnérables, et inclure des mesures raisonnables pour empêcher des mauvais traitements dont les autorités avaient ou auraient dû avoir connaissance (voir, mutatis mutandis, Osman c. Royaume-Uni, 28 octobre 1998, § 116, Recueil 1998-VIII, et E. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 33218/96, § 88, 26 novembre 2002).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 39326/02

  ÇELIK v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  The obligation on High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see, for example, E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002, and Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 52, ECHR 2007-VI).

  "Previous cases in which the Court has found that the State's positive obligations under Article 3 were engaged concerned far more serious instances of ill-treatment: beating with a garden cane applied with considerable force on more than one occasion (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 21, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI), very serious neglect and abuse for a number of years (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 11-36, 40 and 74, ECHR 2001-V), consistent sexual abuse over a period of years (see D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, §§ 66-74, 10 October 2002), extremely serious sexual and physical abuse over a long period of time (see E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, §§ 43 and 89, 26 November 2002), multiple rape (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 16-21, 30 and 153, ECHR 2003-XII), beating all over the body with wooden planks, leading to multiple rib fractures (see Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 8, 11 and 51, ECHR 2007-VI), and anal fissure caused by several attackers in highly intimidating circumstances (see Nikolay Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 72663/01, §§ 9 and 70, 27 September 2007).".

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

  BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In respect of a substantive complaint of failure of the State to take adequate positive measures to protect a person's life in violation of Article 2, the possibility of obtaining compensation for the death of a person will generally, and in normal circumstances, constitute an adequate and sufficient remedy (see, E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 110 and, mutatis mutandis, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 53519/07

  I.G. v. MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-VI; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V; and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA

  As for the applicant's complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 2, the Government submitted that while in principle a mechanism had to be available to the victim or the victim's family for establishing the liability of State officials or bodies for acts or omissions involving a breach of Convention rights (a reference was made to E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 110, 26 November 2002), cases of a non-intentional infringement of the right to life did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case (Branko Tomasic and Others, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In examining this question the Court will bear in mind that "States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in the field of electoral legislation" (see Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, no. 13716/02, § 68, ECHR 2006-VI), which is a fortiori true where the case concerns the extent of the State's positive obligations, and that the State is only required to take those measures which are "reasonably available" (see, mutatis mutandis, E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 99, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 13119/08

  A.G. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-VI; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V; and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 14659/02

  WILKINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  "The obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 149-50, ECHR 2004-...; A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 22; Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V, and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).".
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 50977/10

  ZIMINOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court reiterates that the obligation of the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-VI; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V; and E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 22429/05

  KOVAL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.03.2003 - 75135/01

  PATRICNY and PATRICNA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 52520/12

  B.J. AND S.J. v. POLAND