Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARTA v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No substantive violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 3 under its procedural aspect Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ...

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26137/04

  While it is true that the police officer was probably stronger than the applicant or her mother, account must be taken of the fact that they effectively resisted his legitimate action - by refusing to comply with the verbal demands to follow him, setting dogs on him and resisting the attempts of the officer to apprehend the applicant (compare and contrast with Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, 28.11.2000, ECHR 200-XII).

• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14

  HAÁSZ AND SZABÓ v. HUNGARY

  However, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).

  The Court's case-law attaches certain weight to action effectively taken by the victim as a private public prosecutor (see, for example, Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 47, 10 April 2007; Horváth and Vadászi v. Hungary (dec.), no. 2351/06, 9 November 2010; Réti and Fizli v. Hungary, no. 31373/11, § 25, 25 September 2012; and Bajic v. Croatia, no. 41108/10, §§ 80-82, 13 November 2012; see also Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 39-41, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).

• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 6749/22

  GRGICIN v. CROATIA

  The Court agrees that the force used had been made strictly necessary by the first applicant's own conduct, and neither excessive nor disproportionate (compare Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, §§ 68-72, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 4760/18

  KOBAS v. CROATIA

  The Court thus agrees with the Government that that the force used had been made strictly necessary by the applicant's own conduct, and was not excessive (compare Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, §§ 68-72, 10 April 2007).

 
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08

  ERKAPIC v. CROATIA

  Therefore, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09

  HORVATIC v. CROATIA

  Thus, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51355/10

  TOPIC v. CROATIA

  Therefore, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 49268/10

  LONGIN v. CROATIA

  Therefore, Article 35 § 1 does not require that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 45, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 7088/11

  GABLISHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  These circumstances count heavily against the applicants concerned, with the result that the burden placed on the Government to prove that the use of force was not excessive in this case is less stringent (see Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, § 49, 27 November 2008; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 65-78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 71, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 37967/18

  SHAHZAD v. HUNGARY (No. 2)

  As regards the Government's contention that in the event of an investigative shortcoming irreparably compromising the outcome of the investigation, the only effective remedy would be a civil action for damages, the Court notes that it has already dismissed such an objection in previous cases against Hungary involving allegations of use of force by State agents (see, for instance, Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 46, 10 April 2007; in relation to claims under Article 3, Alhowais, cited above, § 71; and in relation to a claim under Article 2, 01áh v. Hungary (dec.), no. 56558/00, 14 September 2004).