Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSANDR NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  Consideration has been given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; and Tekin v. Turkey, cited above, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03

  SHERSTOBITOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 127; Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010; and Suleymanov v. Russia, no. 32501/11, § 157, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 71; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  Consideration has been given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; and Tekin v. Turkey, cited above, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 32501/11

  SULEYMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 127; Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010; and Suleymanov v. Russia, no. 32501/11, § 157, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  The Court further reiterates its settled approach that Article 3 imposes on the State a duty to protect the physical well-being of persons who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being within the control of the authorities, such as, for instance, detainees or conscripted servicemen (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 50, 3 July 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-IX; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  The Court further reiterates its settled approach that Article 3 imposes on the State a duty to protect the physical well-being of persons who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being within the control of the authorities, such as, for instance, detainees or conscripted servicemen (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 50, 3 July 2008; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 69, ECHR 2006-IX; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a plausible and convincing explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits, in absolute terms, torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 33954/05

  The question whether the purpose of the treatment was to make the victim suffer is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a violation of Article 3 (see the Greek case, cited above, and also Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EKMR, 24.01.1968 - 3321/67

  GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF GREECE ; GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY v. THE …
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  In many other police ill-treatment cases in which a "pre-investigation inquiry" was the only procedure employed by the investigative authority, the Court's approach was to identify specific deficiencies and omissions on the part of the investigating authority in the course of the "pre-investigation inquiry", which led it to conclude that the State's obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation had not been fulfilled (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, §§ 34-46, 2 October 2008; Valyayev v. Russia, no. 22150/04, §§ 61-73, 14 February 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 58-60, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 58-63, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 64-69, 4 April 2013; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, §§ 110-118, 30 May 2013; Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 78-84, 14 November 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 72-78, 28 November 2013; and Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, §§ 57-66, 30 January 2014).
• EGMR, 22.06.2017 - 12131/13

  Italien verurteilt: Folter durch Polizeigewalt

  L'article 3 de la Convention consacre l'une des valeurs fondamentales des sociétés démocratiques (voir, notamment, Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 95, CEDH 1999-V, Labita c. Italie [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, CEDH 2000-IV, Gäfgen c. Allemagne [GC], no 22978/05, § 87, CEDH 2010, El-Masri c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 39630/09, § 195, CEDH 2012, et Mocanu et autres c. Roumanie [GC], nos 10865/09, 45886/07 et 32431/08, § 315, CEDH (extraits)) et un droit absolu et inaliénable étroitement lié au respect de la dignité humaine (Aleksandr Novoselov c. Russie, no 33954/05, § 54, 28 novembre 2013, Bouyid c. Belgique [GC], no 23380/09, § 81, CEDH 2015), qui ne prévoit pas de restrictions et, d'après l'article 15 § 2, ne souffre nulle dérogation (Gäfgen, précité, § 87).
• EGMR - 53373/14 (anhängig)

  ZHDAN v. RUSSIA

  has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; and, among many other authorities, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 122-123, 19 March 2009; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 57, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, §§ 53-54, 56, 17 January 2012; A.A. v. Russia, no. 49097/08, §§ 75, 77 and 80-81, 17 January 2012; Yudina v. Russia, no. 52327/08, §§ 67-68, 10 July 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 49-50, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 53-55, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 60-61, 4 April 2013; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 52-53, 18 July 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 61-62, 28 November 2013; Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, § 51, 30 January 2014)?.