Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JASINSKIS v. LATVIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Jasinskis gegen Lettland

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08
• EGMR, 17.06.2020 - 45744/08

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  More specifically, the Government pointed out that in the sphere of negligence a civil or disciplinary remedy may suffice (referring in this regard to Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 90, ECHR 2002-VIII), especially considering that the Convention does not grant to an individual a right to request conviction of third persons.

  One of the minimum standards of effective investigation is a hierarchical, institutional and practical independence of persons carrying out the investigation from the persons implicated in the events under investigation (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 70; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 91, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Mikayil Mammadov, cited above, § 101).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and also enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 147, Series A no. 324), enjoins the State not only to refrain from the "intentional" taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III).

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, § 105, Reports 1998-I).

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  In this regard the Court would point out that this is not an obligation of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II) and that Article 2 does not entail the right to have others prosecuted or sentenced for an offence, or an absolute obligation for all prosecutions to result in conviction, or indeed in a particular sentence (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 94 and 96, ECHR 2004-XII).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  BANKS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  However, it would emphasise that this obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 69908/01

  JASAR v.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  In this respect the Court has previously held that an internal inquiry cannot be regarded as adequate in cases concerning allegations of ill-treatment in contravention of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 333-341, ECHR 2007-... with further references, Jasar v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 69908/01, 11 April 2006, and Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 138, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  However, even in such situations those concerned are entitled to an independent and impartial official investigation procedure that satisfies certain minimum standards as to its effectiveness (see Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4762/05, § 102, 17 December 2009, and the jurisprudence cited there).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  However, it would emphasise that this obligation may differ, both in content and in terms of its underlying rationale, depending on the particular situation that has triggered it (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Banks and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21387/05, 6 February 2007).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

  That conclusion is mandated by the procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 66, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 24991/94

  SENSES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.11.2002 - 33218/96

  E. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 39922/03

  TAÏS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 52955/99

  HUYLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

  BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

• EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 78944/12

  SAURE c. ALLEMAGNE

  Der ständigen Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshof zufolge ist auch richtig, dass bei der Nutzung eines Rechtsbehelfs das Beschreiten eines anderen Weges, dessen Ziel praktisch identisch ist, nicht erforderlich ist (siehe u.a. Micallef./. Malta [GK], Nr. 17056/06, Rdnr. 58, CEDH 2009, und Jasinskis./. Lettland, Nr. 45744/08, Rdnr. 50, 21. Dezember 2010).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

  BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court acknowledges that the scope of the State's procedural obligation under Article 3, as well as the particular form of investigation, may vary depending on the situation that has triggered that obligation (see, mutatis mutandis, in the context of the procedural obligations under Article 2, Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 72, 21 December 2010, with further references, and Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 175, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 12316/07

  POPOVSKI v.

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy, which has essentially the same objective, is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10

  BAJIC v. CROATIA

  In other words, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999; Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 65681/01, ECHR 2004-V; and Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, 15 November 2005; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 50, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13462/06

  CESNULEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  In as much as different considerations apply in cases such as the present one in which the death has not been caused by use of force or similar direct official action, the standard against which the investigation's effectiveness is to be assessed may be less exacting (see Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 73, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 47095/09

  MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  In the context of Article 2, the obligation to protect the life of individuals in custody also implies an obligation for the authorities to provide them with the medical care necessary to safeguard their life (see Taïs v. France, no. 39922/03, § 98, 1 June 2006; Huylu v. Turkey, no. 52955/99, § 58, 16 November 2006; and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 60, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 56367/09

  J.R. v. BELGIUM

  En l'espèce, la Cour estime qu'il serait excessif de reprocher au requérant d'avoir sélectionné parmi les recours parallèles existant en droit belge celui qu'il estimait approprié dans son cas et de ne pas avoir intenté l'action mentionnée par le Gouvernement, alors qu'il a exercé - fût-ce à un stade de la procédure postérieur à l'introduction de la requête devant la Cour - un recours préventif en vue d'accélérer la procédure (voir, mutatis mutandis, Aquilina c. Malte [GC], no 25642/94, § 39, CEDH 1999-III, Moreira Barbosa c. Portugal (déc.), no 65681/01, CEDH 2004-V, et Jasinskis c. Lettonie, no 45744/08, §§ 50 et 53-54, 21 décembre 2010).
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 72996/16

  MIRENIC-HUZJAK AND JERKOVIC v. CROATIA

  To sum up, if domestic law provides for several parallel remedies in different fields of law, an applicant who has sought to obtain redress for an alleged breach of the Convention through one of these remedies is not necessarily required to use others which have essentially the same objective (see Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, §§ 50 and 53-54, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 24.10.2017 - 58349/09

  FRANCISKA STEFANCIC v. SLOVENIA

  Where the authorities decide to place and maintain in detention a person with disabilities, they should demonstrate special care in guaranteeing such conditions as correspond to his special needs resulting from his disability (see Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 59, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 181/14

  GADD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15

  PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA