Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 14, Art. 14+3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Effective ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (21)
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02
BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
This is a question to be decided in each case on its facts and depending on the nature of the allegations made (see Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 70, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).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; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).
- EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99
KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, cited above, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004). - EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, cited above, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 16266/03
SHERSTOBITOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
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; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010). - EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269). - EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98
MATKO v. SLOVENIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 100, 2 November 2006). - EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97
WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
Turning to the issue under Article 14 of the Convention, the Court notes that its case-law establishes that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03
TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-XV; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). - EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01
TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
When the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicant's allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Ruslan Umarov v. Russia, no. 12712/02, § 82, 3 July 2008, and Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII). - EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05
SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07
In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-XV; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX). - EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05
POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96
INDELICATO c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 7039/04
CHERKASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00
KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
- EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96
BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 62003/08
KURSISH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Government neither contested the authenticity of the medical evidence submitted by the applicants nor did they argue that the applicants had any injuries before the police intervention (see, by contrast, Makhashevy v. Russia, no. 20546/07, § 125, 31 July 2012). - EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 28834/19
LAPUNOV v. RUSSIA
Article 14 complaint is linked to the one under Article 3, and must, likewise, be declared admissible (see Makhashevy v. Russia, no. 20546/07, § 133, 31 July 2012). - EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 12736/10
ZAKHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
However, a general statement that the applicants' allegations of discrimination were unsubstantiated is insufficient to discharge the State authorities from the obligation requiring the rebuttal of an arguable allegation of discrimination (see, mutatis mutandis, Makhashevy v. Russia, no. 20546/07, § 179, 31 July 2012, and Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 179, 7 October 2014). - EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 40125/20
S.T. AND Y.B. v. RUSSIA
When assessing whether the investigation was expeditious, the Court examines how promptly the authorities reacted to the complaints, the delays in taking statements and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Makhashevy v. Russia, no. 20546/07, § 136, 31 July 2012, with further references).