Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEKOS ET KOUTROPOULOS c. GRECE [Extraits]

  Art. 41, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14+3, Art. 14 MRK
  Violations de l'art. 3 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 13 Non-violation de l'art. 14+3 (allégation de traitement raciste) Violation de l'art. 14+3 (absence d'investigations concernant de possibles motifs racistes) (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

  Art. 41, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 14+3, Art. 14 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 No separate issue under Art. 13 No violation of Art. 14+3 (alleged racist treatment) Violation of Art. 14+3 (failure to investigate possible racist motives) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.11.2004 - 15250/02
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism and racist violence, thereby reinforcing democracy's vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of its enrichment (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 145, 6 July 2005).

  The authorities must do what is reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of a racially induced violence (see, mutatis mutandis, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 158-59, 26 February 2004).

  I agree with the conclusions and with the reasoning of the Chamber, save that I have the same hesitations about the passage in paragraph 65 of the judgment, which draws on paragraph 157 of the Court's Nachova judgment (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.43577/98 and 43579/98), as I expressed in the Nachova case itself.

• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  Discrimination is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  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).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  The question which therefore arises next is whether the minimum level of severity required for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention can be regarded as having been attained in the instant case (see, among other authorities, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 84, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, a finding of a procedural breach of Article 3 of the Convention can also depend on such factors as authorities' failure to reach any conclusive findings of fact, their failure to timely react to the complaints, question relevant possible witnesses or more generally their failure to reach any tangible results (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, §§ 102-103, Reports 1998-VIII; Sadık Önder v. Turkey, no. 28520/95, § 44, 8 January 2004; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).

  The Court considers that the effectiveness of this particular remedy or an aggregate of remedies require separate examination from the point of view of Article 13 of the Convention, which is different from the examination of the specific deficiencies in the inquiries conducted by the domestic authorities that were already examined more specifically from the point of view of compliance with procedural or positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (compare and contrast, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12

  IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  This is a question to be decided in each case in the light of its facts and the nature of the allegations made (see Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 70, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, §§ 59-63, 24 July 2012; and compare with Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, §§ 171-79, 7 October 2014).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA

  This is a question to be decided in each case on its facts and depending on the nature of the allegations made (see Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 70, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).

  However, having regard to its conclusion above under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Polonskiy v. Russia, cited above, § 127; and Sherstobitov v. Russia, no. 16266/03, § 94, 10 June 2010).

 
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

  STOICA v. ROMANIA

  The Court reiterates that in assessing evidence it has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see paragraph 63 above); nonetheless, it has not excluded the possibility that in certain cases of alleged discrimination it may require the respondent Government to disprove an arguable allegation of discrimination and - if they fail to do so - find a violation of Article 14 of the Convention on that basis (see Nachova and Others, cited above, § 157, and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 65, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA

  It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism and racist violence, thereby reinforcing democracy's vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of its enrichment (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 145, ECHR 2005-VII; Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 63, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); and Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, § 126, 4 March 2008).
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 12060/12

  M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA

  This is a question to be decided in each case in the light of its facts and the nature of the allegations made (see Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, nos. 29414/09 and 44841/09, § 158, 27 January 2015; Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 63 and 64, 12 May 2015; Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 70, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, §§ 59-63, 24 July 2012; and compare with Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, §§ 171-79, 7 October 2014).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02

  SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, pour autant que l'intéressé s'appuie sur des informations publiées dans la presse au sujet d'incidents concernant des citoyens rom, la Cour ne saurait perdre de vue que son seul souci est d'établir si en l'espèce le traitement infligé au requérant était motivé par le racisme (Natchova, précité, § 155 ; Bekos et Koutropoulos c. Grèce, no 15250/02, § 66, CEDH 2005-XIII (extraits)).
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 173/17

  X AND Y v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court's assessment 70. The relevant Convention principles concerning a State's responsibility for racially motivated treatment of victims prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention and its obligation to investigate possible racist motives of such a treatment were summarised in the Court's judgments in the case of Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria (see, mutatis mutandis, [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 145-47, 160 and 161, ECHR 2005-VII), in the context of Article 2, which likewise applies to cases under Article 3; the case of Stoica v. Romania (no. 42722/02, §§ 117-19, 126 and 127, 4 March 2008); and the case of Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece (no. 15250/02, §§ 63-65, 69 and 70, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.04.2019 - 38089/12

  SARWARI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour considère que les autorités internes étaient tenues de procéder à un examen plus approfondi de l'ensemble des faits afin de mettre au jour un éventuel mobile raciste (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bekos et Koutropoulos c. Grèce, no 15250/02, § 69-75, CEDH 2005-XIII (extraits)).
• EGMR, 21.12.2017 - 17249/10

  GJIKONDI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour considère que les autorités internes étaient tenues de procéder à un examen plus approfondi de l'ensemble des faits afin de mettre au jour un éventuel mobile raciste (voir, mutatis mutandis, Bekos et Koutropoulos c. Grèce, no 15250/02, § 69-75, CEDH 2005-XIII (extraits)).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 70555/10

  ION BALASOIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  AGHDGOMELASHVILI AND JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 63409/11

  GRIGORYAN AND SERGEYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 67590/10

  FOGARASI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 69908/01

  JASAR v.
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 23914/15

  GENDERDOC-M AND M.D. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  BOACA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 54476/14

  PASTRAMA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16

  LAKATOSOVÁ AND LAKATOS v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 310/04

  SEIDOVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 14475/03

  BILYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 14383/03

  SASHOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  MEMEDOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 12482/14

  LUTSENKO AND VERBYTSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 47283/14

  KORNILOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.11.2020 - 60977/14

  ZAGUBNYA AND TABACHKOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 2945/07

  GALOTSKIN v. GREECE