Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIHHAILOV v. ESTONIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MIHHAILOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10
• EGMR, 25.10.2017 - 64418/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 31305/09

  Russland wegen Erniedrigung eines Rekruten verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  The mere fact that appropriate steps were not taken to reduce the risk of collusion between alleged perpetrators amounts to a significant shortcoming in the adequacy of the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 330, ECHR 2007-II; mutatis mutandis, Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 47708/08, § 208, ECHR 2014; and Lyalyakin v. Russia, no. 31305/09, § 84, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  The Court reiterates that the authorities must act of their own motion once a matter of importance has come to their attention and that they cannot leave it to the initiative of the person concerned to request particular investigative procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, Ilhan, cited above, § 63, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 111, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  The Court therefore considers that the applicant did everything that could reasonably have been expected of him to comply with the time-limits laid down in domestic law and, thus, to exhaust the remedies available to him within the domestic criminal justice system (see, among others, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, where the Court restated that the complaint intended to be made subsequently to the Court must first have been made - at least in substance - to the appropriate domestic body, and be in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law; see also Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 59, ECHR 2000-VII, where the Court reiterated that it must examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant had done everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust domestic remedies).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  When an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 102, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  In particular, where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health, but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, and Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 13255/07

  Georgien ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  However, even in the absence of those aspects, where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for or diminishing his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition set forth in Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Vasyukov v. Russia, no. 2974/05, § 59, 5 April 2011; Gäfgen, cited above, § 89; Svinarenko and Slyadnev, cited above, § 114; and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 192, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 162; Jalloh, cited above, § 67; Gäfgen, cited above, § 88; El-Masri, cited above, § 196; Korobov and Others, cited above, § 92; and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 114, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 316-326, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 115-123, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 51284/09

  ANZHELO GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, § 66, 30 September 2014; see also Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  It should also be pointed out that it may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others (see, among other authorities, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 32, Series A no. 26, and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 220, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05

  VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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