Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WASILEWSKA AND KALUCKA v. POLAND

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-109, 4 May 2001 and Bubbins, cited above, § 137).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  In cases concerning the use of force by State agents, it must take into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place and the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 150, Series A no. 324, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  In cases concerning the use of force by State agents, it must take into consideration not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the relevant legal or regulatory framework in place and the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 150, Series A no. 324, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 56-59, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  In determining whether the force used is compatible with Article 2, it may therefore be relevant whether a law enforcement operation has been planned and controlled so as to minimise to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force or incidental loss of life (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 136, ECHR 2005-II (extracts) § 79).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  The Court reiterates that this should have been a point for the Government to advance, and failure to do so could result in the Court's finding a violation of Article 2 under its substantive limb without examining whether the killing of Mr Kalucki was justified under Article 2 § 2 of the Convention (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 239, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  Furthermore, the Court has consistently held that, in principle, there can be no such necessity where it is known that the person to be arrested poses no threat to life or limb and is not suspected of having committed a violent offence, even if a failure to use lethal force may result in the loss of an opportunity (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 95, ECHR 2005-VII ).
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  In these circumstances, the Court will examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints solely on the basis of their submissions and the documents relating to the domestic proceedings provided by them (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 61, 25 October 2005 and Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 50, 7 February 2008).
• EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45653/99

  ANDREOU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  This means that, as well as being authorised under national law, policing operations must be sufficiently regulated by it, within the framework of a system of adequate and effective safeguards against arbitrariness and abuse of force (see Makaratzis, cited above, § 58 and Andreou v. Turkey, no. 45653/99, § 50, 27 October 2009).
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 55712/00

  KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  In these circumstances, the Court will examine the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaints solely on the basis of their submissions and the documents relating to the domestic proceedings provided by them (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 61, 25 October 2005 and Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 55712/00, § 50, 7 February 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, the Court is of the view that the sum proposed in the declaration in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged violation of the Convention does not bear a reasonable relation to the amounts awarded by the Court in similar cases against Poland in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, among many other authorities, Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, § 87, 14 June 2011; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 70, 23 February 2010; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 69, 24 March 2009l Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 122, 9 December 2008).

  28975/04 and 33406/04, § 59, 23 February 2010; and Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, § 104, 9 December 2008).

• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32245/19

  MACHALIKASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court also notes that in planning an operation involving a large number of armed officers and aimed at arresting, according to the official version of events, a potentially armed terrorist, the SSS Counter-Terrorism Department failed to arrange for an ambulance to be present (see Wasilewska and Kałucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 55 in fine, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 13326/18

  PÂRVU v. ROMANIA

  In particular, the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims (see Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 42, 23 February 2010, and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 148-49, Series A no. 324).

• EGMR, 08.06.2016 - 46702/99

  DZWONKOWSKI ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  28975/04.
• EGMR, 14.05.2020 - 24913/15

  JABLO?ƒSKA v. POLAND

  Any use of force must be no more than "absolutely necessary" for - and strictly proportionate to - the achievement of one or more of the purposes set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 148-149 and 200, Series A no. 324, and Wasilewska and Kałucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 42, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  [ENG]

  28975/04 and 33406/04, §§ 49-58, 23 February 2010; Vachkovi v. Bulgaria, no. 2747/02, §§ 72-77, 8 July 2010; Vlaevi v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 10.10.2024 - 9375/20

  BAGIROVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  In particular, the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 148-49, Series A no. 324; Wasilewska and Kałucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, § 42, 23 February 2010; and Pârvu v. Romania, no. 13326/18, § 72, 30 August 2022).
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 11464/12

  YUKHYMOVYCH v. UKRAINE

  28975/04 and 33406/04, § 42, 23 February 2010 with further references).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 56717/08

  [ENG]

  28975/04 and 33406/04, § 42, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 22.03.2011 - 22102/09

  HEIKKINEN v. FINLAND

  In these respects this case can be distinguished from the case Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland in which the Court found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in similar circumstances (see and compare Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos. 28975/04 and 33406/04, 23 February 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 28326/05

  JASINSKA c. POLOGNE
• EGMR - 33406/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 26330/12

  BLONSKA v. POLAND