Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALKASI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BALKASI AND ALUSHI v. ALBANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  It remains to be determined whether these allegations of ill-treatment are supported by appropriate evidence (compare Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 47159/08

  B.S. c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  The authorities must do what is reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of racially induced violence (see B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 58, 24 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  The Court has also held in the past that the absence of forensic medical examinations are capable of preventing the establishment of whether an alleged victim received any injury (see Shishkin v. Russia, no. 18280/04, § 117, 7 July 2011) and has reiterated 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).

 
• EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 76813/16

  KUCHTA AND METEL v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  Having regard to the injuries apparently sustained by the applicants, those are significant flaws in the investigation in the present case (see Kuchta and Metel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 18280/04

  SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  The Court has also held in the past that the absence of forensic medical examinations are capable of preventing the establishment of whether an alleged victim received any injury (see Shishkin v. Russia, no. 18280/04, § 117, 7 July 2011) and has reiterated 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).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  In assessing whether an applicant has complied with Article 35 § 1, it is important to bear in mind that the requirements contained in that Article concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated (see Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 75, 5 July 2016) and that the Court cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because the Government have not raised a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11

  HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  It further considers that the applicants are entitled to offer an alternative account of the facts of the case compared to that established by the domestic authorities, without this amounting automatically to an abuse of the right of individual application (compare also Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 185, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  The Court notes at the outset the Government's argument that, in order to exhaust domestic remedies, the remaining applicants should have instituted civil and administrative proceedings to obtain redress for the alleged breach of Article 3. It reiterates, however, that in the area of unlawful use of force by State agents, civil or administrative proceedings aimed solely at awarding damages, rather than ensuring the identification and punishment of those responsible, are not adequate and effective remedies capable of providing redress for complaints based on the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Pihoni v. Albania, no. 74389/13, § 68, 13 February 2018, and Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, no. 13320/02, § 252, 2 June 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 797/14

  IVANOVA ET IVASHOVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  Accordingly, their statement that they lodged a constitutional appeal within four months of 24 May 2017 when they acquired knowledge of the Supreme Court's decision of 19 May 2016, remained unchallenged (see, mutatits mutandis, Ivanova and Ivashova v. Russia, nos. 797/14 and 67755/14, §§ 52-58, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  IGARS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  Having regard to these considerations, the Court finds that the first and the fourth applicants have failed to make an arguable claim or credible assertion that they were ill-treated (compare also Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 74389/13

  PIHONI v. ALBANIA