Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOACA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOACA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 40355/11

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

• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  The Court reiterates that where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 at the hands of the police or other similar agents of the State, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 317, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Labita, cited above, § 131).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  The Court also points out that where an individual is in good health when taken into police custody but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  The latter cases, it may be noted, were brought before the Court following or in connection with domestic proceedings in which the direct victim himself or herself had participated while alive (see Tagayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 26562/07, § 476, 9 June 2015; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 98, ECHR 2014, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's conduct (see, among many other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  Such applicants must show either a strong moral interest, besides the mere pecuniary interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or other compelling reasons, such as an important general interest which required their case to be examined (see Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 90, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 56, 19 June 2012, and Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  Moreover, it is not normally within the province of the Court to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 25762/07

  SCHWIZGEBEL v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  A complaint is characterised by the facts alleged in it and not merely by the legal grounds or arguments relied on (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 69, ECHR 2010 (extracts); or Karrer v. Romania, no. 16965/10, § 25, 21 February 2012).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  43577/98 and 43579/98, § 145, ECHR 2005-VII as well as paragraph 97 below).
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

  STOICA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  The Court further observes that the object of the application, namely police brutality and discrimination based on ethnic grounds, raises serious issues under the Convention (see, in particular, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 63, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, § 126, 4 March 2008, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  The Court further observes that the object of the application, namely police brutality and discrimination based on ethnic grounds, raises serious issues under the Convention (see, in particular, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 63, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, § 126, 4 March 2008, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  KABUROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  MROZOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 16965/10

  KARRER v. ROMANIA

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 60103/11

  STEPANIAN c. ROUMANIE

  Ces requérants doivent montrer un intérêt moral fort, mis à part l'éventuel intérêt pécuniaire qu'ils pourraient avoir à l'issue des procédures internes, ou d'autres raisons impérieuses, par exemple un intérêt général important qui exige que l'affaire soit examinée (Boaca et autres c. Roumanie, no 40355/11, §§ 45-50, 12 janvier 2016 et Kaburov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9035/06, § 56, 19 juin 2012).