Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEMEDOV v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MEMEDOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  In the light of the above, and noting that the meaning of discrimination in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 is identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009, and Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 30100/18, § 45, 29 October 2019), the Court will examine the applicant's discrimination complaints exclusively under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3, there being no need for an assessment thereof under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (see X and Y v. North Macedonia, cited above, § 64, and Cazacliu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 63945/09, §§ 161 and 162, 4 April 2017).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  It will also not address separately the applicant's subsequent complaint raised in the submissions of 4 October 2019 (see paragraph 29 above), which is closely linked to and absorbed by the applicant's complaints to be examined under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Cazacliu and Others, cited above, §§ 90, 162 and 165).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  Scope of the case 30. Notwithstanding the absence of any objection by the Government regarding the applicability of Article 14 of the Convention, the Court will address the issue of compatibility ratione materiae in view of the relevant case-law (see, among many other authorities, Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 124, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010).

 
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  Furthermore, while potentially relevant, it is an insufficient basis for a conclusion of racially motivated police abuse regarding the concrete events in the present case (see X and Y v. North Macedonia, cited above, § 73; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 155, ECHR 2005-VII; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece no. 15250/02, § 66, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  Furthermore, while potentially relevant, it is an insufficient basis for a conclusion of racially motivated police abuse regarding the concrete events in the present case (see X and Y v. North Macedonia, cited above, § 73; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 155, ECHR 2005-VII; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece no. 15250/02, § 66, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 16.04.2019 - 48474/14

  LINGURAR v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  From the material available, the Court also does not find any evidence that the police raid, which was a response to the violent reaction of the local residents, was influenced by the residents" Roma origin (see, conversely, Lingurar v. Romania [Committee], no. 48474/14, §§ 75 and 76, 16 April 2019).
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 63945/09

  CAZACLIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  In the light of the above, and noting that the meaning of discrimination in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 is identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009, and Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 30100/18, § 45, 29 October 2019), the Court will examine the applicant's discrimination complaints exclusively under Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3, there being no need for an assessment thereof under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (see X and Y v. North Macedonia, cited above, § 64, and Cazacliu and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 63945/09, §§ 161 and 162, 4 April 2017).

• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11811/20

  ELMAZOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 37685/10, § 124, 20 March 2018, and Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 57, ECHR 2013), considers that the complaint should be analysed under Article 14, to be taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. North Macedonia, no. 173/17, § 64, 5 November 2020, and Memedov v. North Macedonia [Committee], no. 31016/17, § 32, 24 June 2021).