Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 3933/04
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (31)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  Any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  As the Court has stated on many occasions, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).

  In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation is at issue, the Court has often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  Any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV), and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  The Court reiterates that persons in custody are in a vulnerable position and that the authorities are under a duty to protect their physical well-being (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 73, ECHR 2006-... ; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 77, 4 October 2005; and Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  Nevertheless, such force may be used only if it is indispensible and must not be excessive (see Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 20075/03

  SHILBERGS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  The Court reiterates that the question whether the applicant received compensation - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - for the damage caused by the treatment contrary to Article 3 is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, § 72, 17 December 2009, and, mutatis mutandis, Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 126 and 127).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-...; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006; and Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 124, 19 March 2009).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01

  SHEYDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  NARDONE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 21.12.2006 - 35962/97

  GÖMI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 17060/03

  ZELILOF v. GREECE
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 69908/01

  JASAR v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 1249/03

  ATALAY v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94

  NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 34615/02

  KRAVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  In the context of the complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, redress that is commensurate with the nature of the violation would normally require a proper investigation capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible and monetary compensation (see, essentially in the context of the Court's assessment of a possible loss of victim status on account of favourable domestic measures following death or ill-treatment inflicted intentionally, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 121-30, ECHR 2010; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 130-35, 14 April 2015; and Jeronovičs, cited above, §§ 103-08; see also Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-31, 29 July 2010, and Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, § 50, 5 February 2015).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 56070/18

  STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA

  After all, the Court in its judgment in Sabalic (cited above, § 111) stressed the need for the domestic authorities to demonstrate the State's Convention commitment to ensuring that homophobic ill-treatment does not remain ignored by the relevant authorities and to providing effective protection against acts of ill-treatment motivated by the applicant's sexual orientation, showing that such acts could in no way be tolerated, rather than fostering a sense of impunity for the acts of violent hate crime (compare also Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 100, 14 December 2010; and also Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 141, 29 July 2010; Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 48-49, 4 November 2010; Zontul v. Greece, no. 12294/07, §§ 106-109, 17 January 2012; and Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 88 in fine, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOVY v. RUSSIA

  Against this background and in so far as a monetary compensation is relevant in the present context (see, by way of comparison, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-131, 29 July 2010), it remains unclear whether the domestic law allows the adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time on account of the double violation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention; see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).

• EGMR, 09.06.2026 - 44621/19

  ERÇIN c. TÜRKIYE

  The question of whether the applicant received compensation for the damage caused by the treatment contrary to Article 3 (comparable to just satisfaction, as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention) is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 143, 29 July 2010, and Shestopalov, cited above, § 58).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  The question of whether the applicant received compensation for the damage caused by the treatment contrary to Article 3 - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 143, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 15983/21

  HANU? A v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints about an amount of compensation for a personal injury caused by police interventions (see, for example, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, 29 July 2010; Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, 28 March 2017; and Zličić v. Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  The question of whether the applicant received compensation for the damage caused by the treatment contrary to Article 3 - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 143, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 31151/08

  [ENG]

  Separate procedural obligations may also arise under Article 2 concerning the provision of effective investigations into the use of lethal force, but as already mentioned above, these are not in issue in the present case (see Caraher, cited above; compare Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 121, 29 July 2010; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010-...where also the procedural aspect of Articles 2 or 3 was in issue).