Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOROKINS AND SOROKINA v. LATVIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sorokins and Sorokina v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes, first, that even though for lack of jurisdiction the Court is prevented from examining the circumstances surrounding the alleged ill-treatment (see paragraphs 70-73 above), it is not precluded from taking into consideration its findings in respect of the procedural obligation deriving from Article 3 of the Convention (see also Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 64)., ECHR 2007-III).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  The Court reiterates that the six-month rule serves the interest of legal certainty as a value in itself (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I) and that the running of the six-month period normally starts from the final decision constituting exhaustion of domestic remedies, or, when the remedies are unavailable or ineffective, it runs from the day of the act or the measure, or the day it became known to the applicant (see Sabri Günes v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, § 54, 29 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  According to the Court's case-law, the investigation should be independent, impartial, prompt and subject to public scrutiny (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 135-136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) and involve external authorities (see Poltoratskiy, cited above, § 126).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  Such an investigation, as under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and, if appropriate, punishment of those responsible, and should reflect a serious effort on the part of the authorities to discover what really occurred (see Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 125, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  It reiterates that in order for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, there must be a sufficiently direct link between the applicant and the harm which they consider they have sustained on account of the alleged violation (see, amongst others, Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, § 35, ECHR 2004-III).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  According to the Court's case-law, the investigation should be independent, impartial, prompt and subject to public scrutiny (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, §§ 135-136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) and involve external authorities (see Poltoratskiy, cited above, § 126).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  It is relevant in this regard to be aware, in response to the Government's argument that relevant documents were unavailable because the period of retention in the archives had expired, that the Court adopts conclusions that are, in its view, supported by a free assessment of all evidence, including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties" submissions (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII) and that proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  The Court notes that although the Government have not raised an objection to the Court's competence ratione temporis, the Court will address this issue of its own motion (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06

  POGHOSYAN ET BAGHDASARYAN c. ARMENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

  Without prejudice to the fact that the second applicant as a family member might have to a certain extent been concerned with the above events, the Court does not find that she was directly affected by the alleged violations (see also Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, § 32, ECHR 2012; contrast Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 69, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 48539/99

  Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Umgehungsschutz; Schweigerecht; materieller / …
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05

  TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE

  La Cour rappelle ensuite que, lorsqu'un individu affirme de manière défendable avoir subi des traitements contraires à l'article 3 de la part de la police ou d'autres autorités comparables, cette disposition requiert qu'il y ait une enquête officielle effective (Assenov et autres c. Bulgarie, no 24760/94, § 102, 28 octobre 1998, Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, § 131, CEDH 2000-IV, et Sorokins et Sorokina c. Lettonie, no 45476/04, § 95, 28 mai 2013).