Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 40116/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SECIC v. CROATIA
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14+3, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 No separate issue under Art. 8 or 13 Violation of Art. 14+3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SECIC c. CROATIE
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14+3, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
Violation de l'art. 3 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 8 ou 13 Violation de l'art. 14+3 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
- EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 40116/02
Wird zitiert von ... (21)
- EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12
R.B. v. HUNGARY
It maintained that the Court's analysis under Article 14 read in conjunction with the procedural limb of Article 2 or Article 3 (see, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII, and Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, 31 May 2007) was limited in that it had not addressed the question whether the failure to carry out an effective investigation in general had been due to institutional racism. - EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 15529/12
BALÁZS v. HUNGARY
It maintained that the Court's analysis under Article 14 read in conjunction with the procedural limb of Article 2 or Article 3 (see, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII; and Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, 31 May 2007) was limited in that it had not addressed the question whether the failure to carry out an effective investigation in general had been a result of institutional racism.The Court has held that the foregoing is necessarily true also in cases where the treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention was inflicted by private individuals (see Valiulienė v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 74, 26 March 2013; and Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 67, 31 May 2007).
- EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 39326/02
[ENG]
The obligation on High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see, for example, E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, 26 November 2002, and Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 52, ECHR 2007-VI)."Previous cases in which the Court has found that the State's positive obligations under Article 3 were engaged concerned far more serious instances of ill-treatment: beating with a garden cane applied with considerable force on more than one occasion (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 21, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI), very serious neglect and abuse for a number of years (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 11-36, 40 and 74, ECHR 2001-V), consistent sexual abuse over a period of years (see D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, §§ 66-74, 10 October 2002), extremely serious sexual and physical abuse over a long period of time (see E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, §§ 43 and 89, 26 November 2002), multiple rape (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 16-21, 30 and 153, ECHR 2003-XII), beating all over the body with wooden planks, leading to multiple rib fractures (see Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 8, 11 and 51, ECHR 2007-VI), and anal fissure caused by several attackers in highly intimidating circumstances (see Nikolay Dimitrov v. Bulgaria, no. 72663/01, §§ 9 and 70, 27 September 2007).".
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02
STOICA v. ROMANIA
Therefore, it does not deem it necessary in the present case to make a separate finding under Article 13 of the Convention for this branch of the complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Secic v. Croatia no. 40116/02, § 61, ECHR 2007-...). - EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16
ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
In these circumstances, the Court finds that already at the initial stages of the proceedings, immediately after the screening of 20 February 2013 to which the applicants participated, the domestic authorities were confronted with prima facie indications of verbal abuse motivated or at least influenced by the applicants' sexual orientation (compare Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 69, 31 May 2007; Milanović v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 99, 14 December 2010; Abdu v. Bulgaria, no. 26827/08, § 35, 11 March 2014; and Begheluri, cited above, § 176). - EGMR, 31.01.2023 - 33470/18
KREYNDLIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Therefore, being aware that the attack could have been motivated by hatred towards the applicants - apparently perceived by the attackers as belonging to, or being associated with persons of different nationality or ideology - the authorities allowed the investigation to last for many years without taking adequate action with a view to identifying or prosecuting the perpetrators (see Milanović v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 99, 14 December 2010; Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, §§ 66-70, 31 May 2007; Makhashevy, cited above, §§ 144-45; and, in so far as relevant, Antayev and Others, cited above, §§ 111 and 128-29), let alone establishing the alleged bias motive. - EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 66895/10
ALKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09
N.D. v. SLOVENIA
This amount, however, is substantially lower than the Court's award in the similar case of W. v. Slovenia (cited above, § 92) or, indeed, in other cases involving deficiencies in an investigation and/or a prosecution of cases of sexual or physical abuse committed by private individuals (see P.M. v. Bulgaria, cited above; C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, cited above; M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above; Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, 31 May 2007; Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, 14 December 2010, and D.J. v. Croatia, no. 42418/10, 24 July 2012). - EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05
TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE
Les autorités doivent avoir pris les mesures raisonnables dont elles disposaient pour assurer l'obtention des preuves relatives aux faits en question (Secic c. Croatie, no 40116/02, § 54, CEDH 2007-VI). - EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03
[ENG]
In this case there exists an explicit obligation to investigate possible racist overtones in the events in question (see Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, §§ 66-70, 31 May 2007). - EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 95/24
KOFFI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 72663/01
NIKOLAY DIMITROV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 45855/12
M.F. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8049/07
NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 3832/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 9548/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.09.2010 - 37770/03
MARINOV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 29554/17
BÓDI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 49473/07
OPREA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 20325/06
[ENG]
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
- EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 40116/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93
AKSOY c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
Before the Court, allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence, to the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Labita v. Italy, no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV), but such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. - EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
The applicants rely on the Costello-Roberts case, where the Court concluded that the abuse suffered by the applicant did not amount to ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3, but considered it as possibly interfering with his physical integrity under Article 8 (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, p. 60, § 34).
- EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 only applies where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96
PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
The Court recalls that 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 nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
They rely on the Nachova case and on the assumption that a complaint of racist violence should be accorded utmost priority, as they are particularly destructive of fundamental rights (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-...). - EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97
ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02
It is incumbent on the individual concerned to demonstrate the existence of a special link between the situation complained of and the particular needs of his or her private life (see Zehnalovà and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".