Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• taz.de (Pressebericht, 03.04.2013)

  Straßburg stärkt Opfer von Polizeigewalt

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Korobov and Others v. Estonia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 10195/08
• EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08
• EGMR, 25.05.2016 - 10195/08

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  The Court reiterates that an applicant who has already exhausted domestic remedies to no avail before complaining to this Court of a violation of his or her rights is not obliged to do so a second time in order to be able to obtain just satisfaction from the Court (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium (Article 50), 10 March 1972, § 16, Series A no. 14, and, more recently, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Moreover, under the established case-law, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see KozacıoÄ?lu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III; and Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 84, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

  MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Thus, the situation was quite different from that in cases where the Court has dealt with complaints concerning injuries sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman, cited above, § 100; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

  RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Moreover, under the established case-law, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see KozacıoÄ?lu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, 19 February 2009; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III; and Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, § 84, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18541/04

  KUZMENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person's absconding or causing injury or damage (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports 1997-VIII; Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 180, ECHR 2005-IX; and Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, § 45, 21 December 2010).
• EKMR, 30.06.1997 - 25091/94

  SAHiN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  It normally also requires that complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to those same courts, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among other authorities, Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, §§ 604 and 605, 13 November 2003; and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 142, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof 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).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Thus, the situation was quite different from that in cases where the Court has dealt with complaints concerning injuries sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman, cited above, § 100; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 10195/08

  Thus, treatment has been held by the Court to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering, and also "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI, and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, § 48, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 8550/03

  SAPOZKOVS v. LATVIA

  Recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 81, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Korobov and Others v. Estonia, no. 10195/08, § 97, 28 March 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 32897/12

  TREIAL v. ESTONIA

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that if doubt exists as to the effectiveness of a domestic remedy, an attempt to use that remedy must be made (see, for example, Korobov and Others v. Estonia, no. 10195/08, § 137, 28 March 2013, with further references).