Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,51007
EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,51007)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.04.2009 - 22684/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,51007)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. April 2009 - 22684/05 (https://dejure.org/2009,51007)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,51007) 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 ... (51)Zitiert selbst (22)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 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).

    As such, the situation in the present case differs from those cases where injuries are sustained while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, in which cases the burden of proof clearly rests on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the cause of the injuries (see, among many authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; Pruneanu v. Moldova, no. 6888/03, § 44, 16 January 2007; and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 34445/04, § 60, 11 January 2007).

  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    The Court also notes that, as in cases under Article 2 of the Convention, whatever mode or form of investigation is employed at the domestic level in respect of Article 3 complaints, once the matter has come to the attention of the authorities, they must act of their own motion and cannot leave it to the applicant to take responsibility for the conduct of investigatory procedure (see, mutatis mutatis, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 175, ECHR 2005-XI).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    In those cases, the Court has held that the burden rested on the Government to demonstrate solely that such use of force was not excessive (see, for example, Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, §§ 46-47, 24 May 2007; Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 36672/97, §§ 53-55, 24 July 2007; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 60-61, 24 July 2008; Saya and Others v. Turkey, no. 4327/02, § 20, 7 October 2008; Balçık and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, §§ 30-31, 29 November 2007; and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, §§ 101-104, 2 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 25/02

    BALÇIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    In those cases, the Court has held that the burden rested on the Government to demonstrate solely that such use of force was not excessive (see, for example, Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, §§ 46-47, 24 May 2007; Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 36672/97, §§ 53-55, 24 July 2007; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 60-61, 24 July 2008; Saya and Others v. Turkey, no. 4327/02, § 20, 7 October 2008; Balçık and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, §§ 30-31, 29 November 2007; and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, §§ 101-104, 2 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

    REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    It therefore does not appear that the authorities were called upon to react in a completely random and unprepared manner (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII) and should have been able to anticipate any developments and take at least some measures to evaluate and avoid unnecessary risks and to refrain from applying force in an indiscriminate and disorderly manner.
  • EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

    STOICA v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    In the present case, the very fact that the injuries resulted from the use of force by the police is in dispute (compare with Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, §§ 48 and 66, 4 March 2008).
  • EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

    IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see Kurnaz and Others, cited above, § 52, and Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

    MATKO v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    In those cases, the Court has held that the burden rested on the Government to demonstrate solely that such use of force was not excessive (see, for example, Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, §§ 46-47, 24 May 2007; Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 36672/97, §§ 53-55, 24 July 2007; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 60-61, 24 July 2008; Saya and Others v. Turkey, no. 4327/02, § 20, 7 October 2008; Balçık and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, §§ 30-31, 29 November 2007; and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, §§ 101-104, 2 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 17060/03

    ZELILOF v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    In those cases, the Court has held that the burden rested on the Government to demonstrate solely that such use of force was not excessive (see, for example, Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, §§ 46-47, 24 May 2007; Kurnaz and Others v. Turkey, no. 36672/97, §§ 53-55, 24 July 2007; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 60-61, 24 July 2008; Saya and Others v. Turkey, no. 4327/02, § 20, 7 October 2008; Balçık and Others v. Turkey, no. 25/02, §§ 30-31, 29 November 2007; and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, §§ 101-104, 2 November 2006).
  • EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

    IPEK c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
    Taking into account the fact that these witnesses testified before the domestic authorities several months after the incident, the Court notes that the passage of time inevitably takes a toll on a witness's capacity to recall events with great detail and accuracy (compare with Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 116, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 07.10.2008 - 4327/02

    SAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

    AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

    HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 34445/04

    MAMMADOV (JALALOGLU) v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 4439/04

    ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  • EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 6888/03

    PRUNEANU v. MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 08.09.2026 - 64510/17
    Nevertheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply particularly thorough scrutiny - even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 283-84, ECHR 2001-VII, and Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 99, 2 April 2009).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 35485/05

    [ENG]

    The proceedings concerned only the actions of the organisers of the demonstration and those participating in it, and it appears that no criminal or other form of investigation was carried out in connection with the allegations of excessive use of force by the police and military units during the dispersal of the demonstration (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 23 and 114, 2 April 2009).
  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

    M.S. v. CROATIA

    See further; Filip, cited above, §§ 48-49 - where, in the context of a psychiatric internment, the applicant brought the allegations of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities by complaining to the first instance court and the President of the Republic; Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 123, 2 April 2009 - where the Court held that the applicant brought the matter of ill-treatment to the attention of the State authorities by producing evidence in the civil proceedings; MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, §§ 88-89, 21 June 2011 - where the applicant complied with his duty to inform the relevant national authorities of his alleged ill-treatment by complaining before the trial court and the Constitutional Court; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 41, 18 October 2011 - where the obligation for an ex officio investigation arose after it was established during the trial against the applicant that he had been ill-treated; and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73, 17 April 2012 - where the applicant sufficiently informed the domestic authorities by complaining of ill-treatment in the remedies against his conviction in the criminal proceedings.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht