Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PADURET v. MOLDOVA

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim) Violation of Art. 3 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 33134/03

  The Court observes that in the case of Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) it held:.
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 33134/03

  While there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation in a particular situation, it may generally be regarded as essential for the authorities to launch an investigation promptly in order to maintain public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 72, ECHR 2002-II).".
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 33134/03

  The Court observes that in the case of Batı and Others v. Turkey (nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)) it held:.

• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 32325/13

  MAFALANI v. CROATIA

  See further, J.L. v. Latvia (no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73-75, 17 April 2012) where the obligation to investigate arose, inter alia, on the basis of facts implied in the applicant's complaints made during the criminal proceedings against him; and Paduret v. Moldova (no. 33134/03, §§ 63-64, 5 January 2010) where a duty of a prompt investigation arose on the basis of the applicant's medical examination revealing the possibility of ill-treatment.
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 32715/19

  M.S. c. ITALIE

  La Cour a ainsi conclu à la violation des garanties procédurales de l'article 3 dans des affaires où la prescription avait joué parce que les autorités n'avaient pas agi avec la promptitude et la diligence requises (voir, entre autres, Bati et autres c. Turquie, nos 33097/96 et 57834/00, §§ 97 et 145-147, CEDH 2004-IV (extraits), Abdülsamet Yaman, précité, § 59, Yesil et Sevim c. Turquie, no 34738/04, §§ 38-42, 5 juin 2007, Erdogan Yilmaz et autres c. Turquie, no 19374/03, § 57, 14 octobre 2008, Erdal Aslan c. Turquie, nos 25060/02 et 1705/03, §§ 75-79, 2 décembre 2008, Paduret c. Moldova, no 33134/03, § 75, 5 janvier 2010, Karagöz et autres c. Turquie, nos 14352/05 et 2 autres, §§ 53-55, 13 juillet 2010, Savin c. Ukraine, no 34725/08, §§ 70-71, 16 février 2012, Ugur c. Turquie, no 37308/05, § 105, 13 janvier 2015, et Barovov c. Russie, no 9183/09, § 42, 15 juin 2021).
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 18944/02

  CORSACOV AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND 18 OTHER CASES

  33134/03.
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  In this context, the Court considers that the failure of the prosecutor's office to undertake the relevant investigating measures for such a long period of time is incompatible with the requirement of promptness included in the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Paduret v. Moldova, no. 33134/03, § 68, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 12.04.2018 - 34804/14

  GORAN KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA

  Even in the absence of an express complaint, Article 3 of the Convention requires an official investigation where there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment might have occurred (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007, and Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 62, ECHR 2014; see also J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73-75, 17 April 2012, where the obligation to investigate arose, inter alia, on the basis of facts implied in the complaints made by the applicant during the criminal proceedings against him, and Paduret v. Moldova, no. 33134/03, §§ 63-64, 5 January 2010, where the duty to undertake a prompt investigation arose on the basis of the results of a medical examination of the applicant, which revealed the possibility of ill-treatment).