Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FANZIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  MROZOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  The Court reiterates that where a person is injured while in detention or otherwise under the control of the police, any such injury will give rise to a strong presumption that the person was subjected to ill-treatment (see, among many other authorities, Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  SHUMKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  Such an obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources (see, among others, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 219, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 82, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 90, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  A positive obligation will arise, the Court has held, where it has been established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual by a third party or himself and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Keenan, cited above, § 90, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-III).

 
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness (see, with further references, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 74, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  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 Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  BETAYEV AND BETAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  Such delay in itself was liable to affect the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, § 85, 29 May 2008).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  Although the use of force during arrest, even if resulting in injury, may disclose no breach of Article 3 if the use of force was indispensable and resulted from the conduct of the applicant (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269), the Court also points out that where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health 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, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  Although the use of force during arrest, even if resulting in injury, may disclose no breach of Article 3 if the use of force was indispensable and resulted from the conduct of the applicant (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269), the Court also points out that where an individual, when taken into police custody, is in good health 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, 14.09.2023 - 2264/12

  AINIS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  However, the Court has held that in some contexts, such as detention in police stations, even where it is not established that the authorities knew or ought to have known about any such risk, there are certain basic precautions which police officers should be expected to take in all cases in order to minimise any potential risk to the health and well-being of the arrested person (see Daraibou, cited above, § 84; Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 48, 18 June 2015; Eremiásová and Pechová, cited above, § 110; and, mutatis mutandis, Mizigárová, cited above, § 89, and P.H. v. Slovakia, no. 37574/19, § 113, 8 September 2022).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 84523/17

  DARAIBOU v. CROATIA

  However, even where it is not established that the authorities knew or ought to have known about any such risk, there are certain basic precautions which police officers and prison officers should be expected to take in all cases in order to minimise any potential risk to protect the health and well-being of the arrested person (see Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 48, 18 June 2015 ; Keller v. Russia, no. 26824/04, § 88, 17 October 2013; Eremiá?.ová and Pechová v. the Czech Republic, no. 23944/04, § 110, 16 February 2012; and Mi?¾igárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 89, 14 December 2010).