Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOJSIEJEW v. POLAND

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 11818/02
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02
• EGMR, 09.12.2015 - 11818/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  However, whatever the outcome of the domestic proceedings, the conviction or acquittal of the centre's employees does not absolve the respondent State from its responsibility under the Convention (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  The criminal proceedings against the employees of the centre are pending before the domestic authorities and the issue of their guilt is a matter for the jurisdiction of the Polish criminal court alone (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 404, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts), and Nikolova and Velichkova, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 § 1 enjoins the State not only to refrain from the intentional and unlawful taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports 1998-III; Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998-VIII; and Paul and Audrey Edwards, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  (e) A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-04, Reports 1998-VI; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  (e) A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-04, Reports 1998-VI; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 109, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  (c) The effective investigation required under Article 2 serves to maintain public confidence in the authorities" maintenance of the rule of law, to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts, to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III; and Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, §§ 69 and 72).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  While there is no absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction or in a particular sentence, the national courts should not under any circumstances be prepared to allow life-endangering offences to go unpunished (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII; and Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  (e) A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-04, Reports 1998-VI; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  (b) Compliance with the State's positive obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 43124/98

  TÜRKMEN c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  PRZEMYK v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that the sum proposed in the declaration in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention does not bear a reasonable relation to the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases against Poland in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, among many other authorities, Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, § 87, 14 June 2011; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 70, 23 February 2010; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 69, 24 March 2009l Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 122, 9 December 2008).

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 53, 24 March 2009; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos.

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Ce postulat ne semble guère correspondre à la position adoptée par la Cour dans des centaines d'autres affaires où elle a jugé que « toute carence de l'enquête affaiblissant sa capacité à établir les circonstances de l'espèce ou à identifier les responsables risque de faire conclure qu'elle ne présente pas le niveau d'effectivité requis'(voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, §§ 96-97, 4 mai 2001, Anguelova c. Bulgarie, no 38361/97, § 139, CEDH 2002-IV, et Mojsiejew c. Pologne, no 11818/02, 24 mars 2009).
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 29263/12

  S.Z. c. BULGARIE

  La Cour relève cependant que ces voies de recours ont été créées dans l'objectif spécifique de fournir une compensation en cas de durée excessive d'une procédure judiciaire, alors que la présente affaire, au vu des griefs formulés par la requérante, ne porte pas uniquement sur la durée de la procédure pénale mais sur la question de savoir si, dans les circonstances de l'affaire prises dans leur globalité, l'État peut passer pour avoir satisfait à ses obligations procédurales au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention (voir Silih c. Slovénie [GC], no 71463/01, § 169, 9 avril 2009, Mojsiejew c. Pologne, no 11818/02, § 42, 24 mars 2009).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  HEMSWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  This premise seems to have little support in the Court's position in hundreds of other cases, where the Court held that "any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness" (see, among many other authorities, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, §§ 96-97, 4 May 2001; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 33829/07

  KIJOWSKI v. POLAND

  However, in the present case it is not merely the excessive length of civil proceedings which is in issue, but the question whether in the circumstances of the case seen as a whole, the State can be said to have complied with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see, as regards Article 2 of the Convention, Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 42, 24 March 2009).