Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOLODENKO v. LATVIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  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) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Holodenko v. Latvia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07
• EGMR, 17.10.2018 - 17215/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  SPINOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  Relying on Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, 27 November 2008, the Government considered that those circumstances had counted heavily against the applicant and therefore the Government's burden of proof that the use of force had not been excessive became less stringent.

  They alleged that, in contrast to Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, 27 November 2008, the Internal Security Office had taken concrete steps to investigate the allegations.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that where the events at issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries sustained during such detention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  The Court reiterates the well-established principle that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-).

 
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  The Court reiterates that the requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, § 115, Series A no. 241-A).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  Distinguishing the facts of the present case from those in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, ECHR 2000-XII and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, 2 November 2006, they contended that in this particular case physical force had been used against the applicant only during the course of his arrest when, in the absence of any planned operation and given the small number of police officers present, the unexpected development of the events made it necessary to use certain combat techniques.
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  Distinguishing the facts of the present case from those in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, ECHR 2000-XII and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, 2 November 2006, they contended that in this particular case physical force had been used against the applicant only during the course of his arrest when, in the absence of any planned operation and given the small number of police officers present, the unexpected development of the events made it necessary to use certain combat techniques.
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  It is undisputed that at the time of his arrest in the apartment, the applicant's behaviour could be described as belligerent (see paragraphs 18-19 above) and that the development of an unplanned arrest may, if strictly necessary, justify the use of force (see, for instance, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30 Series A no. 269; see also Hurtado v. Switzerland, (Rep.), 8 July 1993, Series A, No 280-A where the injuries inflicted on the detainee were considered proportional in the context of an arrest of members of a mafia-type organisation).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  Distinguishing the facts of the present case from those in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, ECHR 2000-XII and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, 2 November 2006, they contended that in this particular case physical force had been used against the applicant only during the course of his arrest when, in the absence of any planned operation and given the small number of police officers present, the unexpected development of the events made it necessary to use certain combat techniques.