Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 21571/05
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 45959/09

  MITROV AGAINST

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see, among many other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and also Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45959/09, § 58, 2 June 2016 ).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  Furthermore, different considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence recovered by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3. The admission into the case file of statements obtained as a result of a violation of Article 3 renders the proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, in breach of Article 6 (see Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 105, ECHR 2006-IX, and Fidanci v. Turkey, no. 17730/07, § 34, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  In order to determine whether proceedings provide the "fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceedings take place (see, for instance, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 17730/07

  FIDANCI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  Furthermore, different considerations apply in respect of the use in criminal proceedings of evidence recovered by a measure found to be in breach of Article 3. The admission into the case file of statements obtained as a result of a violation of Article 3 renders the proceedings as a whole automatically unfair, in breach of Article 6 (see Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 63, ECHR 2007-VIII; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 99 and 105, ECHR 2006-IX, and Fidanci v. Turkey, no. 17730/07, § 34, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  In order to determine whether proceedings provide the "fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty" regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceedings take place (see, for instance, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012, and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see, among many other authorities, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and also Mitrov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 45959/09, § 58, 2 June 2016 ).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  The Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in a number of cases, including those directed against Georgia, concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody without a court order, solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment has been filed with a trial court (see, amongst many other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-147, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 106-111, 27 January 2009, and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  The Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in a number of cases, including those directed against Georgia, concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody without a court order, solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment has been filed with a trial court (see, amongst many other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-147, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 106-111, 27 January 2009, and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  Such an investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  The Court notes that it has already found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in a number of cases, including those directed against Georgia, concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody without a court order, solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment has been filed with a trial court (see, amongst many other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-147, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 106-111, 27 January 2009, and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 32362/02

  VISLOGUZOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.04.2013 - 65391/09

  ILDANI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 48183/99
• EGMR, 10.09.2009 - 15010/04

  SHKURENKO v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 63896/12

  SHALA c. SUISSE

  Ainsi, il est de jurisprudence constante que le maintien dans le dossier pénal de preuves obtenues d'un coaccusé ou d'un témoin au moyen de la torture ou d'un traitement dégradant prive d'équité cette procédure dans son ensemble (Mindadze et Nemsitsveridze c. Géorgie, no 21571/05, § 142, 1er juin 2017, et Kaçiu et Kotorri c. Albanie, nos 33192/07 et 33194/07, §§ 126- 128, 25 juin 2013).
• EGMR - 29627/16 (anhängig)

  SENTSOV AND KOLCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  If so, did it amount to torture (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no. 14416/06, § 79, 15 May 2018; Bartesaghi Gallo and Others v. Italy, nos. 12131/13 and 43390/13, § 120, 22 June 2017; Mindadze and Nemsitsveridze v. Georgia, no. 21571/05, § 109, 1 June 2017)?.