Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.F. v. HUNGARY

  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);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.F. v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 25536/14

  SKORJANEC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 45855/12

  A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations which are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see Skorjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, § 53, ECHR 2017 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 45855/12

  The Court has already held that where an applicant has lodged a criminal complaint concerning acts of violence and alleging discriminatory motives behind the attack, that person is not required to pursue the matter by instituting a subsidiary prosecution (see R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, § 62, 12 April 2016).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 45855/12

  Discrimination is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).

• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 7329/16

  MATA v. HUNGARY

  The Court has held in a number of cases that applicants are not required, with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, to bring substitute private prosecution, essentially because to do so would constitute the pursuit of a legal avenue that would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019, and M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017).
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 59119/15

  TRENDAFILOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court's assessment 32. The relevant general principles with regard to complaints under the substantive head of Article 3 are summarised in the case of Bouyid (cited above, §§ 82, 86 and 87); El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ([GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 195-97, ECHR 2012); and M.F. v. Hungary (no. 45855/12, § 42-45, 31 October 2017).
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY

  As regards the Government's submission concerning the applicant's failure to initiate private prosecution proceedings, the Court has held in a number of cases that applicants are not required, with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, to bring substitute private prosecutions, essentially because to do so would constitute the pursuit of a legal avenue that would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019; M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017; R.B. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 60-65; and Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, §§ 25-27, 26 June 2012; see also Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 95, 2 November 2006).