Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.F. AND E.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  These measures should provide effective protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3159-60, § 116, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 159, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  These measures should provide effective protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3159-60, § 116, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 159, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  The Court recalls that Article 13 guarantees the availability of a remedy at national level to enforce - and hence to allege non-compliance with - the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  In the present case, the Court notes that in the proceedings before the House of Lords the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Chief Constable conceded that some of the more extreme behaviour of the loyalist protesters constituted inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. It recalls that treatment has been held to be inhuman because, inter alia, it was premeditated, it was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering, and also "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 71, 16 December 1999).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  Under Article 8 the States have a duty to protect the physical and moral integrity of an individual from other persons (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97

  D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  Under Article 8 the States have a duty to protect the physical and moral integrity of an individual from other persons (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 100, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 7510/04

  KONTROVA c. SLOVAQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 28326/09

  Not every claimed risk of ill-treatment can entail for the authorities a Convention requirement to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 219, ECHR 2010-... (extracts), Osman v. United Kingdom, cited above, § 116, and Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, § 50, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  It has also held that, in certain well-defined circumstances, Articles 2 and 3 may imply positive obligations on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect individuals at risk of serious harm from the criminal acts of other individuals (Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 244; P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 28326/09, § 36, 23 November 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 8029/07

  GÜN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Ainsi, l'article 5 ne saurait s'interpréter, par exemple, de manière à exclure le recours par la police au « kettling'(Austin, précité, § 56, se référant à P.F. et E.F. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28326/09, § 41, 23 novembre 2010), technique qui consiste en la rétention d'un groupe de personnes pour des motifs d'ordre public (Austin, précité, § 52).
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19

  GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In the present case, it has not been argued in any of the domestic proceedings, or before the Court, that the tensions erupted so abruptly or so overwhelmed the police resources as to justify a decision to limit their reaction to merely attempting to minimise the damage by preventing physical confrontation (compare Karaahmed, cited above, § 107; see also P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28326/09, §§ 43-45, 23 November 2010).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 30587/13

  KARAAHMED v. BULGARIA

  no. 28326/09, 23 November 2010, where considerable mental suffering was found to have occurred to young schoolgirls and their parents when they were exposed to two months of daily abuse - including threats and the throwing of missiles, including bodily waste - at the hands of protestors and where, as a result of that suffering, the Article 3 threshold was found to have been met.
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10

  CWIK v. POLAND

  This obligation has been recognised, inter alia, in the following "private" contexts: a stepfather beating a child with a cane (see A. v. UK, cited above, §§ 22-24); neglect and abuse suffered by children at the hands of their parents (see Z and Others, cited above, § 74) or their stepfather (see E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 89, 26 November 2002); rape (see, among other authorities, M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 148, and S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, § 41, 3 March 2015); violent assault on worshipers (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 102, 3 May 2007); acts of domestic violence and threatening conduct (see, among other authorities, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 161, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 74-75, 9 July 2019); sectarian violence towards schoolchildren and their parents (see P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28326/09, 23 November 2010, § 38); serious assaults on individuals (see, for example, Beganovic, cited above, § 66; Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 95, 17 December 2009; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, § 49, 16 April 2013; and Irina Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 1870/05, § 73, 13 October 2016); attack on a Hare Krishna member (see Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 87, 14 December 2010); sterilisation of Roma woman without informed consent (see V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 119, ECHR 2011 (extracts); sexual abuse of children by a teacher in primary school (see O"Keeffe, cited above, § 153); homophobic violence (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 71, 12 May 2015); and a child's ill-treatment by teachers of a nursery school (see V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 172, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 4505/08

  SOKIRYANSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Likewise, where the alleged violation concerns Article 3 of the Convention the Court has held that the State is under an obligation to take "reasonable steps" to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities had or ought to have had knowledge (see Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-V, and P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28326/09, § 37, 23 November 2010).