Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2022,142
EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16 (https://dejure.org/2022,142)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.01.2022 - 44888/16 (https://dejure.org/2022,142)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Januar 2022 - 44888/16 (https://dejure.org/2022,142)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2022,142) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PERTAIA v. GEORGIA

    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 17.01.2019 - 49284/09

    BREGVADZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    There is no doubt that his application to that effect was sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject matter of the accusation and could even arguably have led to the applicant's acquittal (see Kartvelishvili, cited above, § 61, with further references therein; see also Bregvadze v. Georgia, no. 49284/09, § 27, 17 January 2019, and contrast Dorokhov v. Russia, no. 66802/01, § 74, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 14.02.2008 - 66802/01

    DOROKHOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    There is no doubt that his application to that effect was sufficiently reasoned, relevant to the subject matter of the accusation and could even arguably have led to the applicant's acquittal (see Kartvelishvili, cited above, § 61, with further references therein; see also Bregvadze v. Georgia, no. 49284/09, § 27, 17 January 2019, and contrast Dorokhov v. Russia, no. 66802/01, § 74, 14 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 18996/06

    MIKIASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    The relevant general principles were summarised by the Court in Bouyid v. Belgium ([GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-88, 100-01, and 114-23, ECHR 2015; see also El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 151-53 and 182-85, ECHR 2012, and Mikiashvili v. Georgia, no. 18996/06, §§ 69-72, 9 October 2012).
  • EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

    PIOTROWSKI v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    It was not until his lawyer was served with the full written judgment given by the Supreme Court that the applicant was able to find out the content, particularly the reasoning, of the final domestic decision given in his case (compare with Piotrowski v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 8923/12, §§ 34-35, 22 November 2016; see also Pietka v. Poland, no. 34216/07, § 45, 16 October 2012, and Slawinski v. Poland [Committee], no. 61039/16, § 25, 15 April 2021, with further references therein; see also Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

    DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    He maintained, with reference to the Court's case-law (Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 84 and 121, 26 January 2006, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 90-91, 17 December 2009) that the length of the proceedings coupled with their inefficiency exempted him from the obligation to continue waiting for the outcome of the impugned investigation.
  • EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 17716/08

    KARTVELISHVILI v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    The relevant general principles were summarised in Murtazaliyeva v. Russia ([GC], no. 36658/05, §§ 160-68, 18 December 2018; see also Kartvelishvili v. Georgia, no. 17716/08, §§ 59-61, 7 June 2018, with further references therein).
  • EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 2625/12

    ARKANIA v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    Thus, the Government failed to present any convincing arguments to rebut the prima facie evidence concerning the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained those injuries (see Arkania v. Georgia [Committee], no. 2625/12, § 45, 25 June 2020).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

    AGHDGOMELASHVILI AND JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    Last but not least, the applicant was not allowed to participate in the criminal investigation in any meaningful way, as he was repeatedly refused the victim status despite his numerous requests to that end (see Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 39, 8 October 2020, with further references therein).
  • EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 34216/07

    PIETKA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    It was not until his lawyer was served with the full written judgment given by the Supreme Court that the applicant was able to find out the content, particularly the reasoning, of the final domestic decision given in his case (compare with Piotrowski v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 8923/12, §§ 34-35, 22 November 2016; see also Pietka v. Poland, no. 34216/07, § 45, 16 October 2012, and Slawinski v. Poland [Committee], no. 61039/16, § 25, 15 April 2021, with further references therein; see also Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V).
  • EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

    MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16
    He maintained, with reference to the Court's case-law (Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, §§ 84 and 121, 26 January 2006, and Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, §§ 90-91, 17 December 2009) that the length of the proceedings coupled with their inefficiency exempted him from the obligation to continue waiting for the outcome of the impugned investigation.
  • EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 61039/16

    SLAWINSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 40009/12

    GOGUADZE v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2019 - 2316/09

    KEKELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 34720/16

    KVIRIKASHVILI v. GEORGIA

    At no point during either the disciplinary inquiry or the actual criminal investigation was a forensic medical examination ordered with a view to establishing the cause and origin of the applicant's fractured ribs (see Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, § 125, 21 February 2019; see also Pertaia v. Georgia [Committee], 44888/16, § 38, 13 January 2022).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht