Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  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);No violation of Article 5 - Right ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (25)

• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  STANIMIROVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see, for example, Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011, and Almasi, cited above, § 61).

  He was then detained for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 until his conviction by the Zrenjanin High Court on 30 June 2015 (see paragraph 43 above; see also, for example, Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 43, 18 October 2011).

• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111, and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, §§ 77-79, 9 July 2009) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham, cited above, § 47; Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007; and Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 80, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII) while in the absence of such explanation the Court may draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see, among other authorities, Bouyid, cited above, § 83).

 
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings at issue (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35, and Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see, for example, Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111, and Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, §§ 77-79, 9 July 2009) or where the domestic authorities neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Benham, cited above, § 47; Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 82, 6 December 2007; and Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 80, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  From that date until 22 December 2015, when the Novi Sad Appeals Court quashed the first-instance decision (see paragraph 44 above), he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, § 34, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also be satisfied that the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings at issue (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, § 35, and Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 26808/08

  ÇATAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  In the context of the review of a detained person's continued detention pursuant to Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the proceedings must be adversarial and must ensure "equality of arms" between the parties, namely the prosecutor vis-à-vis the detainee (see Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II, and Çatal v. Turkey, no. 26808/08, § 32, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 thereof - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and in so far as the fairness of the trial is liable to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, §§ 36-37, Series A no. 275; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, ECHR 2008; Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, § 76, ECHR 2015; and Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, § 121, 9 November 2018).
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  It follows that the applicant's pre-trial detention, including the period prior to his initial conviction, lasted for approximately three years in all (see, mutatis mutandis, Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10 and 4 others, §§ 115-16, 3 December 2015; also, compare and contrast, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 129, 130 and 134, 22 May 2012, where the applicant, unlike the applicant in the present case, had been released from his pre-trial detention and then re-arrested).
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  YATSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  ALMASI v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19796/14

  KRSMANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  AGHDGOMELASHVILI AND JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 24989/17

  ÐURIC v. SERBIA

  That is, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see, for example, Stevan Petrovic v. Serbia, nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19, § 186, 20 April 2021).
• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 32731/17

  KOSTOV c. BULGARIE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour relève que le montant de l'indemnité proposée par le Gouvernement - une somme de 16 400 euros - est pleinement satisfaisant au regard des montants alloués par elle dans des affaires similaires (voir, par exemple, Boris Kostadinov c. Bulgarie, no 61701/11, §§ 65-76, 21 janvier 2016, Stevan Petrovic c. Serbie, nos 6097/16 et 28999/19, §§ 181-187, 20 avril 2021, et Trocin c. République de Moldova, no 23847/19, §§ 65-70, 16 mars 2021).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 56540/14

  SUSLOV AND BATIKYAN v. UKRAINE

  Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see, for example, Stevan Petrovic v. Serbia, nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19, § 108, 20 April 2021, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 6682/12

  NOVAKOVIC v. SERBIA

  In Stevan Petrovic v. Serbia (nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19, §§ 153-57, 20 April 2021) the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 37967/18

  SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (No. 2)

  In particular, such investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and - if appropriate - punishment of those responsible, to ensure their accountability for the ill-treatment in question (see Bouyid, cited above, §§ 117 and 119, and Stevan Petrovic v. Serbia, nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19, § 109, 20 April 2021).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 6673/12

  KOVAC v. SERBIA

  In Stevan Petrovic v. Serbia (nos. 6097/16 and 28999/19, §§ 153-57, 20 April 2021) the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 25.04.2024 - 55788/20

  KR?TKY v. SLOVAKIA

  6097/16 and 28999/19, § 178, 20 April 2021), the Court concludes that the constitutional proceedings leading to the decisions of 10 September 2020 and 18 March 2021 fell short of the requirement of speediness.