Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TANGIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  Consideration has been 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 the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).

 
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  Consideration has been 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 the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01

  Gesetzlicher Richter gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; Besetzung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 46661/99

  SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; and Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; and Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17332/03

  LEVINTA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; and Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (compare Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  In many other police ill-treatment cases in which a "pre-investigation inquiry" was the only procedure employed by the investigative authority, the Court's approach was to identify specific deficiencies and omissions on the part of the investigating authority in the course of the "pre-investigation inquiry", which led it to conclude that the State's obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation had not been fulfilled (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, §§ 34-46, 2 October 2008; Valyayev v. Russia, no. 22150/04, §§ 61-73, 14 February 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 58-60, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 58-63, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 64-69, 4 April 2013; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, §§ 110-118, 30 May 2013; Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 78-84, 14 November 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 72-78, 28 November 2013; and Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, §§ 57-66, 30 January 2014).
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 40311/19

  MUZHETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017, Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 76, 11 December 2012, and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69-71, 26 November 2019.
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 75045/11

  PUGACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 111-12, 12 December 2017; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 76, 11 December 2012; and Belugin v. Russia, no. 2991/06, §§ 69-71, 26 November 2019.

 
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 13642/06

  RYABTSEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found in earlier cases in respect of confessions that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; and Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008) or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107, 21 September 2006, and Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 74, 11 December 2012) as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 5666/07

  ZAGAYNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  By the time the applicants were examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (see Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 15476/08

  FREDRIKSEN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that in such circumstances the applicant made the domestic authorities sufficiently aware of his grievances as the prosecution inquiry into his alleged ill-treatment was ordered and examined by the first instance court and eventually accepted by the appeal court in its final decision of 13 September 2007 (see, in a similar context, Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 39, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 03.03.2020 - 33373/07

  AVDYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  By the time the applicants were examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 47821/09

  NIGMATULLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  By the time when the applicants were examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 22463/07

  BOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  By the time the applicants were examined, precious time had been lost and it was impossible to determine the cause or origin of their injuries (Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 61, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR - 53373/14 (anhängig)

  ZHDAN v. RUSSIA

  has the applicant been subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; and, among many other authorities, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 122-123, 19 March 2009; Gladyshev v. Russia, no. 2807/04, § 57, 30 July 2009; Alchagin v. Russia, no. 20212/05, §§ 53-54, 56, 17 January 2012; A.A. v. Russia, no. 49097/08, §§ 75, 77 and 80-81, 17 January 2012; Yudina v. Russia, no. 52327/08, §§ 67-68, 10 July 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 49-50, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 53-55, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 60-61, 4 April 2013; Nasakin v. Russia, no. 22735/05, §§ 52-53, 18 July 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 61-62, 28 November 2013; Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, § 51, 30 January 2014)?.
• EGMR, 27.07.2021 - 29120/06

  MININ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 39619/09

  ISHEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA