Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMOFEJEVI v. LATVIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 11.04.2000 - 32357/96

  SEVTAP VEZNEDAROGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  However, for the reasons set out below, it considers that the difficulty in determining whether there was any substance to the first applicant's allegations of ill-treatment rests with the authorities failure to investigate their complaints effectively (see VeznedaroÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 32357/96, § 31, 11 April 2000; Petru Rosca v. Moldova, no. 2638/05, § 42, 6 October 2009; Popa v. Moldova, no. 29772/05, § 39, 21 September 2010; and Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, § 83, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  In this regard the Government referred to Avsar v. Turkey (no. 25657/94, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)), noting that the obligation under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention was one of means, not result (ibid., § 394): an effective investigation could well end with a finding that no violation had taken place.
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also practical independence (see Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, no. 46430/99, § 66, 5 October 2004; and also Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 70, 126-127, ECHR 2003-V as concerns the requirement for the investigation to be carried out by an authority which was not directly involved in the events).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 46430/99

  BARBU ANGHELESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  This means not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also practical independence (see Barbu Anghelescu v. Romania, no. 46430/99, § 66, 5 October 2004; and also Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 70, 126-127, ECHR 2003-V as concerns the requirement for the investigation to be carried out by an authority which was not directly involved in the events).
• EGMR, 06.10.2009 - 2638/05

  PETRU ROSCA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  However, for the reasons set out below, it considers that the difficulty in determining whether there was any substance to the first applicant's allegations of ill-treatment rests with the authorities failure to investigate their complaints effectively (see VeznedaroÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 32357/96, § 31, 11 April 2000; Petru Rosca v. Moldova, no. 2638/05, § 42, 6 October 2009; Popa v. Moldova, no. 29772/05, § 39, 21 September 2010; and Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, § 83, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 29772/05

  POPA v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  However, for the reasons set out below, it considers that the difficulty in determining whether there was any substance to the first applicant's allegations of ill-treatment rests with the authorities failure to investigate their complaints effectively (see VeznedaroÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 32357/96, § 31, 11 April 2000; Petru Rosca v. Moldova, no. 2638/05, § 42, 6 October 2009; Popa v. Moldova, no. 29772/05, § 39, 21 September 2010; and Hristovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42697/05, § 83, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  The Court will accordingly examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Shchukin and Others v. Cyprus, no. 14030/03, § 99, 29 July 2010; Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 110, 11 October 2011; Halat v. Turkey, no. 23607/08, §§ 48-50, 8 November 2011; Sercau v. Romania, no. 41775/06, §§ 79-80, 5 June 2012; and Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, §§ 68-71, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 56994/09

  KHATAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  The Court will accordingly examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Shchukin and Others v. Cyprus, no. 14030/03, § 99, 29 July 2010; Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 110, 11 October 2011; Halat v. Turkey, no. 23607/08, §§ 48-50, 8 November 2011; Sercau v. Romania, no. 41775/06, §§ 79-80, 5 June 2012; and Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, §§ 68-71, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 23607/08

  HALAT c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  The Court will accordingly examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Shchukin and Others v. Cyprus, no. 14030/03, § 99, 29 July 2010; Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 110, 11 October 2011; Halat v. Turkey, no. 23607/08, §§ 48-50, 8 November 2011; Sercau v. Romania, no. 41775/06, §§ 79-80, 5 June 2012; and Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, §§ 68-71, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 41775/06

  SERCAU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 45393/04

  The Court will accordingly examine this complaint under the procedural aspect of Article 3 of the Convention (see Shchukin and Others v. Cyprus, no. 14030/03, § 99, 29 July 2010; Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Khatayev v. Russia, no. 56994/09, § 110, 11 October 2011; Halat v. Turkey, no. 23607/08, §§ 48-50, 8 November 2011; Sercau v. Romania, no. 41775/06, §§ 79-80, 5 June 2012; and Mitkus v. Latvia, no. 7259/03, §§ 68-71, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 1179/10

  ILJINS v. LATVIA

  To cite a further example, the Court refers to the Government's submissions in Timofejevi and their specific reference to domestic case-law (case no. A42583206) (see Timofejevi v. Latvia, no. 45393/04, § 69, 11 December 2012).