Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  Rather, this appears to have been a form of reprisal against the applicant for disobeying the order to remain still and thus witnessing the alleged ill-treatment of her husband (see, mutatis mutandis, Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 83-85, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 65-70, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  In the Court's opinion, while the execution of an operation potentially involving the use of force is subject to the need to react in the heat of the moment to unpredictable events, as referred to in paragraph 33 above, different considerations apply to the planning of such operations (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 202-14, Series A no. 324, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  The Court pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC], no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that, although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).

 
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  The Court reiterates that, being detached from the events at issue, it cannot substitute its own assessment of the situation for that of an officer who was required to react in the heat of the moment to avert an honestly perceived danger to his life (see, mutatis mutandis, Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 139, ECHR 2005-II, and Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 179, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  In examining them it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 85, ECHR 2015, and also Denisenko and Bogdanchikov v. Russia, no. 3811/02, § 83, 12 February 2009).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  The Court pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC], no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that, although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  In the Court's opinion, while the execution of an operation potentially involving the use of force is subject to the need to react in the heat of the moment to unpredictable events, as referred to in paragraph 33 above, different considerations apply to the planning of such operations (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 202-14, Series A no. 324, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  The Court pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC], no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that, although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

  GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  The Court pointed out in El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC], no. 39630/09, § 155, ECHR 2012) that, although it recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this was not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000), it had to apply a "particularly thorough scrutiny" where allegations were made under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010), even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations had already taken place (see Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 65, 26 July 2007).

• EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 81315/17

  IVANOV v. ROMANIA

  In examining them it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Mî?£u v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 23524/14, § 29, 30 June 2020, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76328/16

  ANGHEL v. ROMANIA

  In examining them it may take account of the quality of the domestic proceedings and any possible flaws in the decision-making process (see Mî?£u v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 23524/14, § 29, 30 June 2020, and all the references cited therein).