Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SINISTAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 49619/06

  MAMUDOVSKI v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  The Court also considers that an appeal on points of law in criminal proceedings (zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnazne presude) is, in principle, an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Mamudovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 49619/06, 10 March 2009).
• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  The Court recalls that the obligation under Article 35 § 1 requires only that an applicant should have normal recourse to the remedies likely to be effective, adequate and accessible (see Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  In any event, the Court has already held that, in the area of unlawful use of force by State agents - and not mere fault, omission or negligence - 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 Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 227, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  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, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 58, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  The Court recalls that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  In view of the above, and given that an effective official investigation is required only where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), the Court considers that the fourth applicant's complaint, under both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention, is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  The Court reiterates in this regard that, while it can be subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case, the issue of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  The Court recalls that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released "on compassionate grounds", it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla, cited above, § 94; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 96, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  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, and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, § 58, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 8550/03

  SAPOZKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 70838/13

  ANTOVIC AND MIRKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Turning to the present case, the Court has already held that as of 20 March 2015 a constitutional appeal in Montenegro can in principle be considered an effective domestic remedy (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28766/06

  KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Turning to the present case, the Court has already held that a request for review is an effective domestic remedy as of 4 September 2013 and only in respect of applications introduced against Montenegro after that date (see Vukelic v. Montenegro, no. 58258/09, § 85, 4 June 2013); the action for fair redress is an effective domestic remedy as of 18 October 2016 (see Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 30, 18 October 2016); and a constitutional appeal as of 20 March 2015 (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10 and 2 others, § 123, 24 November 2015).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 61976/10

  MONTEMLIN SAJO v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court observes that it has consistently held that a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered an effective domestic remedy, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of all applications lodged against Montenegro from 20 March 2015 onwards (see Sinistaj and Others v. Montenegro, nos. 1451/10, 7260/10 and 7382/10, § 123, 24 November 2015, and Vuceljic v. Montenegro (dec.), no. 59129/15, § 31, 18 October 2016).