Weitere Entscheidung unten: EGMR, 04.04.2018

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 23893/06   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,15927
EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 23893/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,15927)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.04.2012 - 23893/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,15927)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. April 2012 - 23893/06 (https://dejure.org/2012,15927)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,15927) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (20)

  • EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 23692/09

    M.C. v. POLAND

    The Court observes that according to its constant case-law the obligation on the High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to ill-treatment administered not only by State agents but also by private individuals (see Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V; J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012; and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 144, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

    However, even taking into account the specific circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Regional Court is considerably below the awards made by the Court in comparable cases (see Premininy v. Russia, cite above and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, 17 April 2012).

  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

    M.S. v. CROATIA (NO. 2)

    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.
  • EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 3564/11

    EREMIA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    This obligation should include effective protection of, inter alia, an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, as well as reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities knew or ought to have known (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998-VIII; E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 88, 26 November 2002; and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

    D.F. v. LATVIA

    Referring to the case-law in the area of burden and standard of proof in Article 3 cases (summarised in, for example, Igars v. Latvia (dec.), no. 11682/03, §§ 64-67, 5 February 2013), the Court notes that the applicant has failed to submit any particulars of his alleged ill-treatment (such as when, where, by whom and how he was ill-treated) as well as failing to submit any proof that he had suffered any injuries (see, in contrast, J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 71-75, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 45476/04

    SOROKINS AND SOROKINA v. LATVIA

    The Court notes in this regard that it has had an opportunity to analyse the effectiveness of the above remedy previously in several cases against Latvia in which the Court had emphasised the broad scope of the prosecutor's powers to react when a report of an alleged offence is received (see, for example, J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 84-86, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 60429/12

    ÄEURBELE v. LATVIA

    Nor does the applicant raise an arguable complaint about inter-prisoner violence (compare and contrast with J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 75, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 32325/13

    MAFALANI v. CROATIA

    See further, J.L. v. Latvia (no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73-75, 17 April 2012) where the obligation to investigate arose, inter alia, on the basis of facts implied in the applicant's complaints made during the criminal proceedings against him; and Paduret v. Moldova (no. 33134/03, §§ 63-64, 5 January 2010) where a duty of a prompt investigation arose on the basis of the applicant's medical examination revealing the possibility of ill-treatment.
  • EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 74839/10

    MUDRIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    This obligation should include effective protection of, inter alia, an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, as well as reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities knew or ought to have known (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998-VIII; E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 88, 26 November 2002; and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 49037/09

    DMITRIJEVS v. LATVIA

    The existing legal framework in 2013 was similar to that in force in 2005; however, the factual nature of the work carried out by prosecutors at the time of the events in issue in the present case, especially in relation to the supervision of prison conditions, has been examined and criticised in a number of other Article 3 cases against Latvia (see, mutatis mutandis, Bazjaks v. Latvia, no. 71572/01, 19 October 2010, and also J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 85-86, 17 April 2012, concerning the transfer of a prisoner).
  • EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 61382/09

    BUSUIOC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    This obligation should include effective protection of, inter alia, an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, as well as reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities knew or ought to have known (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998-VIII; E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 88, 26 November 2002; and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 64, 17 April 2012).
  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 26608/11

    T.M. AND C.M. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 25147/07

    BdRZI?...S v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12

    DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (NO. 2)

  • EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10

    RUMOR v. ITALY

  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 37467/04

    JURIJS DMITRIJEVS c. LETTONIE

  • EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 56668/12

    KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 11065/02

    VOVRUSKO v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 49473/07

    OPREA v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 48435/07

    MAÄ"INOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 27343/05

    STAROVOITOVS v. LATVIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 23893/06, 11160/07   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2018,7703
EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 23893/06, 11160/07 (https://dejure.org/2018,7703)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.04.2018 - 23893/06, 11160/07 (https://dejure.org/2018,7703)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. April 2018 - 23893/06, 11160/07 (https://dejure.org/2018,7703)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,7703) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    J. L. CONTRE LA LETTONIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    J. L. AGAINST LATVIA AND 1 OTHER CASE

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht