Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1), Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 3 Not necessary to examine Art. 5-1 Preliminary objection allowed (six month period) (Art. 5-1) Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 No Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 43393/98
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 43393/98

Wird zitiert von ... (28)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  "Charge", for the purposes of Article 6 § 1, may be defined as "the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence", a definition that also corresponds to the test whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected" (Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 24, § 46).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  Regarding the period to be taken into consideration, the Court recalls that it necessarily begins with the day on which a person is charged, for otherwise it would not be possible to determine the charge, as this word is understood within the meaning of the Convention (Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, p. 41, § 18).
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  Accordingly, the Court considers that an examination concerning the relevant Special Unit officer's account of events was crucial for the proper establishment of the facts immediately relevant to the necessity and proportionality of the use of force against the applicant and therefore for a determination of the question whether the applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan, cited above, § 127, and, by contrast, Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 157, ECHR 2005-...).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  The Court further reiterates that in cases where an individual has an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V, and Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 65, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 20.11.1989 - 11454/85

  KOSTOVSKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  Moreover, even if the officers had been identified and assuming that the protection of their anonymity was justified, this does not mean that they could not have been questioned and examined by the judge with adequate protection of their security and of the applicant's defence rights (Birutis and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 47698/99 and 48115/99, § 30, 28 March 2002, and Kostovski v. the Netherlands, judgment of 20 November 1989, Series A no. 166, § 43).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task 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 (Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, p. 17, § 29).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  The Court reiterates that in respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p. 26, § 38, and Krastanov, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  In addition, since the officers conducting the investigation were subordinated to the same chain of command as those officers subject to investigation, serious doubts arise as to their ability to carry out an independent investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 91, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  The Court further reiterates that in cases where an individual has an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V, and Egmez v. Cyprus, no. 30873/96, § 65, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  However, in the instant case the Public Prosecutor's conduct also lacked the necessary transparency and appearance of independence (see, mutatis mutandis, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 131, ECHR 2001-III, and Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 123, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

  Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

  Vorbringen nach Artikel 3 der Konvention muss der Gerichtshof besonders gründlich prüfen (siehe Matko ./. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43393/98, Rdnr. 100…, Urteil vom 2. November 2006, und Vladimir Romanov ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 41461/02, Rdnr. 59, 24. Juli 2008).
• EGMR, 13.02.2014 - 66393/10

  TALI v. ESTONIA

  Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 100, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  Having regard to its previous case-law in respect of Article 3 (see in particular, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, judgment of 2 November 2006; and Dilek Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 58030/00, judgment of 31 October 2006) and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards him EUR 8, 000.

 
• EGMR, 22.06.2017 - 12131/13

  Italien verurteilt: Folter durch Polizeigewalt

  Quant à l'appréciation des preuves, si la Cour a toujours souligné son devoir de se livrer à un examen particulièrement approfondi en cas d'allégations sur le terrain des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention (Matko c. Slovénie, no 43393/98, § 100, 2 novembre 2006, et Vladimir Romanov c. Russie, no 41461/02, § 59, 24 juillet 2008), elle a également affirmé que, soucieuse de respecter la nature subsidiaire de son rôle, elle n'a pas pour tâche de substituer sa propre vision des choses à celle des cours et tribunaux nationaux, auxquels il appartient en principe de peser les données recueillies par eux (Klaas c. Allemagne, 22 septembre 1993, § 29, série A no 269, Jasar c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 69908/01, § 49, 15 février 2007, et Eski c. Turquie, no 8354/04, § 28, 5 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10

  SABA c. ITALIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'en cas d'allégations sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention, elle doit se livrer à un examen particulièrement approfondi (Matko c. Slovénie, no 43393/98, § 100, 2 novembre 2006, et Vladimir Romanov c. Russie, no 41461/02, § 59, 24 juillet 2008).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA

  Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 100, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6087/03

  GRIMAILOVS v. LATVIA

  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 Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 80, 12 October 2004; Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 99, 2 November 2006; Mrozowski v. Poland, no. 9258/04, § 26, 12 May 2009).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 68842/13

  SERBAN MARINESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 100, 2 November 2006, and Sarigiannis, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 33856/05

  BOBROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the applicant's description of the alleged ill-treatment was consistent throughout the proceedings and accordingly takes the view that the burden of proof rests on the authorities to account for the injuries at issue by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of their cause (see Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, § 44, 24 May 2007, and Polyakov, cited above, §§ 25-26) and to demonstrate that the use of force was not excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 104, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 13642/06

  RYABTSEV v. RUSSIA

  Taking into account the applicant's description of the alleged ill-treatment, which was credible and consistent throughout the proceedings, and the contents of the medical certificate of 29 March 2004, the Court takes the view that the burden of proof rested on the authorities to account for the injuries at issue by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of their cause (see Zelilof v. Greece, no. 17060/03, § 44, 24 May 2007, and Polyakov, cited above, §§ 25 and 26) and to demonstrate that in each case the use of force was not excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 104, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  OTASEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 50443/14

  ARION c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 19328/09

  FERNANDEZ KERR c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  NIKOLAY FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Russland wegen brutaler Folter verurteilt
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 16381/05

  POLANOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 16705/10

  DOUET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  HOLODENKO v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 33498/04

  PUTINTSEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 7129/03

  SKORKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 15579/05

  SAMBOR v. POLAND
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  GOLUBEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 9258/04

  MROZOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 19616/04

  PIENIAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46702/99

  DZWONKOWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 25147/07

  BERZINS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 77092/01

  NECDET BULUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 17721/02

  HÜRRIYET YILMAZ v. TURKEY