Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVITIDZE v. RUSSIA

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Davitidze v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, among others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, concerning allegations of ill-treatment in police custody or detention facilities).

  In addition, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time, consideration being given to the date of commencement of investigations, delays in taking statements and the length of time taken to complete the investigation (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV, and Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 10071/04

  MALININAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 53203/99

  VANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In several cases against Russia, the Court has found that applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for their judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 18757/06

  Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Abgrenzung der unzulässigen Tatprovokation von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In several cases against Russia, the Court has found that applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for their judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 67537/01

  SHANNON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 73557/01

  SEQUEIRA contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 05.02.2008 - 74420/01

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Tatprovokation; agent provocateur; V-Mann; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In particular, they should be in possession of concrete and objective evidence showing that the applicant had taken initial steps to commit the acts constituting the offence for which he was subsequently prosecuted (see Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI; Eurofinacom v. France (dec.), no. 58753/00, ECHR 2004-VII; Shannon v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 67537/01, ECHR 2004-IV; Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 74420/01, §§ 63 and 64, ECHR 2008; and Malininas v. Lithuania, no. 10071/04, § 36, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  In several cases against Russia, the Court has found that applicable domestic law did not provide for sufficient safeguards in relation to test purchases of drugs, and has stated the need for their judicial or other independent authorisation and supervision (see Vanyan v. Russia, no. 53203/99, §§ 46-49, 15 December 2005; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 135, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Bannikova v. Russia, no. 18757/06, §§ 48-50, 4 November 2010).
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

  MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 8810/05

  The Court stresses that proper medical examinations are an essential safeguard against ill-treatment (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, §§ 55 and 118, ECHR 2000-X, and numerous cases concerning Russia, for instance, Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, § 88, 18 March 2010).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 17060/03

  ZELILOF v. GREECE
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36220/02

  BARABANSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

• 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, 11.04.2019 - 38089/12

  SARWARI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Ces examens doivent être effectués par des médecins dûment qualifiés, en dehors de la présence de la police, et le rapport d'examen doit faire état non seulement de toutes les lésions corporelles relevées, mais aussi des explications fournies par le patient quant à la façon dont elles sont survenues, et de l'avis du médecin sur la compatibilité des lésions avec ces explications (Mehmet Emin Yüksel c. Turquie, no 40154/98, § 29, 20 juillet 2004, Yananer c. Turquie, no 6291/05, § 41, 16 juillet 2009, Özgür Uyanik c. Turquie, no 11068/04, § 38, 23 mars 2010, Musa Yilmaz c. Turquie, no 27566/06, § 54, 30 novembre 2010, et Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 115, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 30050/09

  SHISHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It was therefore incumbent on the national authorities to respond to the applicant's claim, which was clearly credible, without undue delay and to provide a plausible explanation for his injuries (see A.A. v. Russia, no. 49097/08, § 92, 17 January 2012, and Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 109, 30 May 2013).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 12008/06

  ALEKSEY BORISOV c. RUSSIE

  En donnant son avis sur cette compatibilité, le médecin doit considérer plusieurs autres facteurs, telles les lésions subies dans des circonstances autres que celles liées à l'infliction de mauvais traitements, à la suite d'une automutilation ou de séquelles de maladies (Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 115, 30 mai 2013, et Barabanchtchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 59, 8 janvier 2009).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

  ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle que si l'article 3 de la Convention n'interdit pas le recours à la force pendant son arrestation, cette force ne doit pas aller au-delà de ce qui est strictement nécessaire (Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 80, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In respect of recourse to physical force during an arrest, the Court has previously stated that Article 3 of the Convention does not prohibit the use of force for effecting a lawful arrest, that such force must not be excessive (see, among others, Polyakov v. Russia, no. 77018/01, § 25, 29 January 2009, and Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 80, 30 May 2013), and that "such force may be used only if it is indispensable and must not be excessive" (see, for instance, Sakir Kaçmaz v. Turkey, no. 8077/08, § 80, 10 November 2015).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 13573/14

  TEPRA v. AUSTRIA

  23200/10, 24009/07 and 556/10, 2 October 2012, Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, 30 May 2013, Furcht v. Germany, no. 54648/09, 23 October 2014, and Matanovic v. Croatia, no. 2742/12, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 21062/07

  IGOSHIN c. RUSSIE

  Toute déficience de l'enquête affaiblissant sa capacité à établir la cause des blessures ou les responsabilités risque de ne pas répondre à cette norme (Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 100, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 40852/05

  SHLYCHKOV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any explanation for such an omission put forward by the respondent Government, the Court cannot but conclude that the failure on the part of the IVS personnel to ensure that the applicant's injuries were immediately examined and documented by a doctor divested the applicant of an important safeguard against a breach of Article 3 of the Convention (compare Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII; Barabanshchikov v. Russia, no. 36220/02, § 46, 8 January 2009; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, § 95, 30 May 2013; and Zayev v. Russia, no. 36552/05, §§ 85-86, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 27217/06

  ZINOVCHIK c. RUSSIE

  La Cour tient à rappeler en particulier que tout recours à la force physique par les agents de l'État à l'encontre d'une personne qui n'est pas rendu strictement nécessaire par son comportement rabaisse sa dignité humaine et, de ce fait, constitue une violation des droits garantis par l'article 3 de la Convention (Gutsanovi c. Bulgarie, no 34529/10, § 126, CEDH 2013 (extraits), et Davitidze c. Russie, no 8810/05, § 80, 30 mai 2013).
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 13810/04

  SHAMARDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 36620/07

  SHEVTSOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 38305/07

  DASLIK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 42900/14 (anhängig)

  DRUZHKOV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR - 11133/11 (anhängig)

  PYNKO v. RUSSIA and 8 other applications
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 29729/09

  KHAYRULLINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 8187/08 (anhängig)

  SHAVAYEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 13408/07

  ZOLOTOREV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 3490/11 (anhängig)

  KOTKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 31236/17 (anhängig)

  VAKHAPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA