Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGARS v. LATVIA

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  The Court has held on many occasions that where a person was healthy before being taken into custody and has thereafter sustained injuries, the Government are under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation as to how the injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention enshrines an absolute prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  The assessment of this minimum level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the stringency of the measure complained of, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  The Court has held on many occasions that where a person was healthy before being taken into custody and has thereafter sustained injuries, the Government are under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation as to how the injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  The Court reiterates that the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention is one of the elements of a fair criminal trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 11682/03

  However, some proof of the existence of injuries is indispensable (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A; Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, 18 October 2001; and Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, §§ 73-78, 11 October 2011).

• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 31634/18

  RIMSEVICS v. LATVIA

  The Court previously held that allegations of a breach of the presumption of innocence were normally raised in the course of criminal proceedings against the applicant (see Shagin v. Ukraine, no. 20437/05, §§ 71-73, 10 December 2009; Panasyuk v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 19906/04, 23 August 2011; and Dovzhenko v. Ukraine, no. 36650/03, § 42, 12 January 2012) in order to give the criminal courts an opportunity to place the applicant, as far as possible, in the position he or she would have been in had the requirements of Article 6 not been disregarded (see Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 91, 5 February 2013, and ? antare and Labaznikovs v. Latvia, no. 34148/07, § 71, 31 March 2016).
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 77444/13

  REBEGEA c. ROUMANIE

  S'agissant de la première voie de recours civile suggérée par le Gouvernement, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà jugé qu'elle n'est pas de nature à remédier pleinement à l'atteinte alléguée à la présomption d'innocence (Konstas c. Grèce, no 53466/07, § 29, 24 mai 2011, et Igars c. Lettonie (déc.), no 11682/03, § 92, 5 février 2013).
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 34133/17

  ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In view of that conclusion, it cannot be said that the authorities were under an obligation to investigate further the applicant's allegations (see Bouyid, cited above, § 116; Yagci and Özcan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 83646/17, §§ 20-26, 16 October 2018; Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; and Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, § 79, 19 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 26710/08

  TONCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Toutefois, la Cour rappelle qu'il est indispensable d'apporter la preuve de l'existence de blessures (voir, par exemple, Hristovi c. Bulgarie, no 42697/05, §§ 73-78, 11 octobre 2011, et Igars c. Lettonie (déc.), no 11682/03, § 67, 5 février 2013).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 8006/08

  IOVANOVSKI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Toutefois, la Cour rappelle qu'il est indispensable d'apporter la preuve de l'existence de blessures (voir, par exemple, Hristovi c. Bulgarie, no 42697/05, §§ 73-78, 11 octobre 2011, et Igars c. Lettonie (déc.), no 11682/03, § 67, 5 février 2013).
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 54630/13

  GORYANOY v. UKRAINE

  They cannot therefore be regarded as amounting to an arguable claim of serious ill-treatment triggering the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention for the State to conduct an effective investigation into them (see Gavula v. Ukraine, no. 52652/07, § 61, 16 May 2013; Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; and Kravchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23275/06, § 51, 24 June 2014).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 45599/13

  H.P. v. CROATIA

  However, some proof of the existence of injuries is indispensable (see, for example, Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, §§ 73-78, 11 October 2011; Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 67, 5 February 2013; and Povestca v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.), no. 54791/19, § 33, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 14800/18

  BALKASI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  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, 01.04.2014 - 13606/11

  Z.K. v. SLOVAKIA

  Having regard to the above considerations, the Court finds (i) that the applicant has failed to lay the basis of a prima facie case of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention on the part of hospital staff of the respondent State, and (ii) no indication that when dealing with the case the domestic authorities disrespected any procedural obligation which may have arisen in their respect in the circumstances (see also, mutatis mutandis, (Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, § 72, 5 February 2013; Svoboda v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 43442/11, § 60, 4 February 2014 and, as regards the procedural obligations of Contracting Parties in the specific sphere of medical negligence, V.C., cited above, §§ 123-125, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 54791/10

  POVESTCA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Toutefois, la Cour rappelle qu'il est indispensable d'apporter la preuve de l'existence de blessures (voir, par exemple, Hristovi c. Bulgarie, no 42697/05, §§ 73-78, 11 octobre 2011, et Igars c. Lettonie (déc.), no 11682/03, § 67, 5 février 2013).