Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EL-ASMAR v. DENMARK

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  EL-ASMAR v. DENMARK

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 30173/12

  JØRGENSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  Moreover, by virtue of section 975 of the Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven), when the prosecution has decided not to bring charges in a criminal case, the case can only be re-opened if at a later stage new evidence of significant weight emerges (see, among other authorities, Jørgensen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 30173/12, § 36, 28 June 2016).

  To the extent that the Government's objection is to be understood as arguing that the applicant, after the Regional Prosecutor's decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings, should have instituted civil proceedings under Article 63 of the Constitution in order to challenge the use of force and possibly obtain compensation, the Court reiterates that in the area of unlawful use of force by State agents - and not mere fault, omission or negligence - civil or administrative proceedings aimed solely at awarding damages, rather than ensuring the identification and punishment of those responsible, are not adequate and effective remedies capable of providing redress for complaints based on the substantive aspect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 135, 19 December 2017; Semache v. France, no. 36083/16, § 53, 21 June 2018; and Jørgensen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 30173/12, §§ 62-64, 28 June 2016).

• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 45439/18

  AGGERHOLM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria, and awards made in comparable cases against Denmark (see, among other authorities, Aggerholm v. Denmark, no. 45439/18, § 127, 15 September 2020, and Tim Henrik Bruun Hansen v. Denmark, no. 51072/15, § 92, 9 July 2019), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 10, 000, covering the costs for the proceedings before it, including legal fees and translation costs.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  In this particular case, however, the identity of the relevant prison guards was recorded (contrast Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 134, ECHR 2000-IV ) and D1's description of the facts in the prison journal concerning the applicant's placement in the security cell corresponded to those later submitted by him and M1.

• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  Regarding the procedural obligation implied by Article 3, the essential purpose of an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment in cases involving State agents or bodies, and to ensure their accountability for ill-treatment occurring under their responsibility (Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 329, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 66393/10

  TALI v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  Concerning the use of pepper spray, the Court has stated that such use "is authorised for the purpose of law enforcement" (see for example, Ali Güneş v. Turkey, no. 9829/07, § 38, 10 April 2012), but has endorsed the CPT concerns that "pepper spray is a potentially dangerous substance and should not be used in confined spaces" and its conclusion that "pepper spray should never be deployed against a prisoner who has already been brought under control" (see, in particular, Ali Güneş, cited above, §§ 39 and 41, and Tali v. Estonia, 66393/10, § 78, 13 February 2014).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 9829/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  Concerning the use of pepper spray, the Court has stated that such use "is authorised for the purpose of law enforcement" (see for example, Ali Güneş v. Turkey, no. 9829/07, § 38, 10 April 2012), but has endorsed the CPT concerns that "pepper spray is a potentially dangerous substance and should not be used in confined spaces" and its conclusion that "pepper spray should never be deployed against a prisoner who has already been brought under control" (see, in particular, Ali Güneş, cited above, §§ 39 and 41, and Tali v. Estonia, 66393/10, § 78, 13 February 2014).
• EGMR, 13.02.2020 - 63571/16

  IBRAHIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN and 6 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  That is justified by the fact that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see, among other authorities, Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, § 89, 13 February 2020).
• EGMR, 21.06.2018 - 36083/16

  SEMACHE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  To the extent that the Government's objection is to be understood as arguing that the applicant, after the Regional Prosecutor's decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings, should have instituted civil proceedings under Article 63 of the Constitution in order to challenge the use of force and possibly obtain compensation, the Court reiterates that in the area of unlawful use of force by State agents - and not mere fault, omission or negligence - civil or administrative proceedings aimed solely at awarding damages, rather than ensuring the identification and punishment of those responsible, are not adequate and effective remedies capable of providing redress for complaints based on the substantive aspect of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 135, 19 December 2017; Semache v. France, no. 36083/16, § 53, 21 June 2018; and Jørgensen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 30173/12, §§ 62-64, 28 June 2016).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 4938/16

  PRANJIC LUKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  The Court reiterates that "any conduct by law-enforcement officers vis-à-vis an individual which diminishes human dignity constitutes a violation of Article 3 of the Convention" and that this "applies in particular to the use of physical force against an individual where it is not made strictly necessary by his conduct, whatever the impact on the person in question" (see, among other authorities, Pranjić-M-Lukić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4938/16, § 73, 2 June 2020).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 24655/18

  BARANIN v. MONTENEGRO and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  It may generally be regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events (see, among others, Baranin and Vukčević v. Montenegro, nos. 24655/18 and 24656/18, §§ 133-137, 11 March 2021).
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 29543/15

  KONSTANTINOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 10465/17

  A.P. v. SLOVAKIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 21325/19

  Y.F.C. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, § 47, 3 October 2023).
• EGMR, 21.10.2025 - 16756/24

  MORTENSEN v. DENMARK

  As regards the proceedings before it, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and to awards made in comparable cases against Denmark (see, among other authorities, Kalkan v. Denmark, no. 51781/22, § 138, 27 May 2025; Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark, no. 25650/22, § 81, 15 October 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 49, 9 April 2024; Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 48, 9 April 2024; and El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, § 88, 3 October 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 10, 000 covering the costs for the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in so far as these have not already been compensated for under the Danish Legal Aid Act.
• EGMR, 27.05.2025 - 51781/22

  KALKAN v. DENMARK

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria, awards made in comparable cases against Denmark (see, notably, El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, § 88, 3 October 2023; Aggerholm, cited above, § 127; and Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark, no. 25650/22, § 81, 15 October 2024), and the fact that the applicant has already been paid DKK 40, 000 under the Danish Legal Aid Act, the Court considers it reasonable to award an additional sum of EUR 6, 000 to cover the costs for the proceedings before the Court.

• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 54549/22

  GÜNANA c. BULGARIE

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime que le Gouvernement n'a pas fourni une explication satisfaisante et convaincante pour les blessures constatées et n'a pas produit de preuves susceptibles de jeter un doute sur la version des faits du requérant (voir, mutatis mutandis, El-Asmar c. Danemark, no 27753/19, §§ 75-80, 3 octobre 2023, et Dokukiny c. Russie, no 1223/12, §§ 26-30, 24 mai 2022).
• EGMR, 31.03.2026 - 10297/23

  MAKKI v. DENMARK

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and to awards made in comparable cases against Denmark (see, among others, Kalkan v. Denmark, no. 51781/22, § 138, 27 May 2025 [if final]; Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark, no. 25650/22, § 81, 15 October 2024; El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, § 88, 3 October 2023; Aggerholm, cited above, § 127; and Tim Henrik Bruun Hansen v. Denmark, no. 51072/15, § 92, 9 July 2019), and to the fact that the applicant has already received DKK 40, 000 under the Danish Legal Aid Act, the Court considers it reasonable to award an additional sum of EUR 6, 000 covering the costs for the proceedings before the Court, including the legal fee and transportation costs.
• EGMR, 05.05.2026 - 34232/24

  POULSEN v. DENMARK

  Rn. 21 The general principles concerning the procedural obligation implied by Article 3 have been summarised in, among other authorities, El-Asmar v. Denmark (no. 27753/19, § 49, 3 October 2023).
• EGMR, 15.10.2024 - 25650/22

  DAUGAARD SORENSEN v. DENMARK

  Making its assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41 of the Convention, it awards EUR 10, 000 under this head (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, E.G. v. the Republic of Moldova, cited above, § 55, and El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, § 84, 3 October 2023).
• EGMR - 39386/25 (anhängig)

  BERGGREN v. DENMARK

  Has the applicant been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, notably, El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, 3 October 2023)?.
• EGMR - 38935/23 (anhängig)

  HIIENURM v. ESTONIA

  Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the use of an electroshock weapon and pepper spray against him (see El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, §§ 75-80, 3 October 2023; Tali v. Estonia, no. 66393/10, § 78, 13 February 2014; Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, §§ 76-77, 30 September 2014; Kanciał v. Poland, no. 37023/13, §§ 78-80, 23 May 2019; see also Sokolovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 10049/20, §§ 18-21, 28 June 2022)?.