Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,68847
EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68847)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.07.2009 - 19223/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68847)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Juli 2009 - 19223/04 (https://dejure.org/2009,68847)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,68847) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court considers that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct and finds it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev, cited above, §§ 104-105; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008).

    Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 of the Convention even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V, and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 93, Reports 1998-VIII).

  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

    TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    The Court also reiterates its finding in the context of a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention that there is no case-law authority for Russian civil courts being able, in the absence of any results from a criminal investigation, to consider the merits of a civil claim relating to alleged serious criminal actions (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 155, 24 February 2005; and Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos.

    In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).

  • EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

    DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    The Court has found that in a case where criminal proceedings against public officials were discontinued without any finding of guilt, any other remedy available to the applicant, including a claim for damages, had limited chances of success and could be regarded as theoretical and illusory rather than practical and effective (see Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 101, 15 May 2008).

    In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court considers that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct and finds it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev, cited above, §§ 104-105; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008).

  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV) and to the length of time taken for the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In accordance with Article 3 of the Convention the State must ensure that a person is detained under conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity and that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27306/95

    KISMIR v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In such circumstances the Court is bound to conclude that the authorities failed to comply with the requirement of promptness (see Kismir v. Turkey, no. 27306/95, § 117, 31 May 2005, and Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 103, ECHR 2007-...).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In the context of detainees, the Court has emphasised that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
  • EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

    SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 40154/98

    MEHMET EMIN YÜKSEL v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04
    In these circumstances, bearing in mind the authorities" obligation to account for injuries caused to persons within their control in custody, and in the absence of a convincing and plausible explanation by the Government in the instant case, the Court considers that it can draw inferences from the Government's conduct and finds it established to the standard of proof required in the Convention proceedings that the injuries sustained by the applicant were the result of the treatment of which he complained and for which the Government bore responsibility (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 88, ECHR 1999-V; Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 30, 20 July 2004; Mikheyev, cited above, §§ 104-105; and Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 78-79, 15 May 2008).
  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

    ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00

    ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

    MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

    CARDOT c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

    KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

    ZAYEV c. RUSSIE

    Pour illustrer ce point, le requérant cite de nombreux arrêts rendus par la Cour à ce sujet (Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, § 52, 2 octobre 2008, Antipenkov c Russie, no 33470/03, §§ 67-69, 15 octobre 2009, Barabanchtchikov c. Russie, no 36220/02, § 61, 8 janvier 2009, Beloussov c. Russie, no 1748/02, § 55, 2 octobre 2008, Gladychev c. Russie, no 2807/04, § 64, 30 juillet 2009, Toporkov c. Russie, no 66688/01, § 53, 1er octobre 2009, et Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, § 72, 30 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

    PREMININY v. RUSSIA

    However, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for establishing the truth in cases of brutality committed by State officials, were conducted by the same State authority whose employees were allegedly implicated in the events which were to be investigated (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009, and Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, § 87, 18 March 2010).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 52673/07

    GRIGORYEV c. RUSSIE

    Dans ces circonstances particulières, la Cour trouve qu'il serait excessif d'exiger du requérant de former un recours en justice séparé contre la décision susmentionnée tendant au même but (comparer avec Akoulinine et Babitch c. Russie, no 5742/02, §§ 26-33, 2 octobre 2008 (affaire dans laquelle les requérants n'ont appris l'existence d'une décision de refus d'ouverture d'une enquête que lors de leur procès pénal et n'ont pas formé de recours séparé contre cette décision), ainsi qu'avec Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, §§ 47-49, 30 juillet 2009, Lopata c. Russie, no 72250/01, §§ 47-49, 13 juillet 2010, Dmitrachkov c. Russie, no 18825/02, §§ 35-39, 16 septembre 2010, et Markaryan c. Russie, no 12102/05, § 44, 4 avril 2013 (affaires dans lesquelles les tribunaux ayant condamné les requérants ont de facto examiné le bien-fondé des décisions portant refus d'ouverture d'une enquête pénale alors que les requérants n'avaient pas formellement contesté ces décisions) ; voir, a contrario, Vyatkin c. Russie (déc.), no 15811/03, 24 janvier 2012, Afonichev c. Russie (déc.) [comité], no 26344/06, 2 juin 2015, et Radzhab Magomedov c. Russie, no 20933/08, 20 décembre 2016 (affaires dans lesquelles les requérants n'ont pas contesté les décisions portant refus d'ouverture d'une enquête pénale et n'ont pas formulé de griefs relatifs à des mauvais traitements devant les juridictions amenées à statuer sur leur responsabilité pénale)).
  • EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

    MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA

    While the Court acknowledges the necessity of internal inquiries by the police with a view to possible disciplinary sanctions in cases of alleged police abuse, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for the establishment of the truth in cases of police brutality, were conducted by the police force itself (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009).
  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

    KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA

    However, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for establishing the truth in cases of brutality committed by State officials, were conducted by the same State authority whose employees were allegedly implicated in the events being investigated (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009, and Maksimov v. Russia, no. 43233/02, § 87, 18 March 2010).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 26344/06

    AFONICHEV c. RUSSIE

    En effet, il n'a pas demandé à ce que l'extrait du registre du centre de détention temporaire de Sterlitamak faisant état de ses blessures légères soit versé aux débats, il n'a pas contesté les résultats de l'enquête préliminaire menée à la suite de ses plaintes pour mauvais traitements ni souligné ses éventuelles insuffisances (comparer avec Vladimir Fedorov c. Russie, no 19223/04, § 47, 30 juillet 2009).
  • EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 18825/02

    DMITRACHKOV v. RUSSIA

    While the Court acknowledges the necessity of internal inquiries by the police with a view to possible disciplinary sanctions in cases of alleged police abuse, it finds it striking that in the present case the initial investigative steps, which usually prove to be crucial for the establishment of the truth in cases of police brutality, were conducted by the police force itself (see, for similar reasoning, Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 69, 30 July 2009).
  • EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

    YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA

    - Were the issue of ill-treatment (use of force) and the issue of an effective investigation of the related complaint examined in substance during the applicant's trial and on appeal against the trial judgment? Was the trial court empowered to afford any adequate redress in respect of these two issues? If yes, has the applicant thereby complied with the exhaustion requirement (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 62-67; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 50-52, 24 July 2008; Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 33, 2 October 2008; Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, §§ 43-44, 2 October 2008; Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, §§ 44-50, 30 July 2009; Toporkov v. Russia, no. 66688/01, §§ 28-35, 1 October 2009; and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 107, 13 July 2010)?.
  • EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24421/11

    KARAKHANYAN v. RUSSIA

    The Court therefore dismisses the Government's objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see mutatis mutandis Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, § 75, 30 July 2009, and Oleg Nikitin v. Russia, no. 36410/02, §§ 41-42, 9 October 2008).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht