Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BALOGH v. HUNGARY
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Préliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 14 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 47940/99
- EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 47940/99
Wird zitiert von ... (88) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.The requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 42, § 115).
The majority of my colleagues in the Chamber has rightly pointed out that it is well-established in the case-law of the Court that where an individual is taken into police custody 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 the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury.The majority of my colleagues in the Chamber has rightly pointed out that it is well-established in the case-law of the Court that where an individual is taken into police custody 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 the Tomasi v. France judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111, and the Ribitsch v. Austria judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34).
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97
ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
In such cases, proof "beyond reasonable doubt" was required, which may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, ECHR 2000-VI; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002-IV).
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 14. In its opinion, and having regard to the all the materials in the case file, there is no substantiation of the applicant's allegation that he was discriminated against in the enjoyment of any of the Convention rights relied on (compare and contrast Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 155 to 175, ECHR 2004-). - EGMR, 02.03.2000 - 31561/96
FARKAS v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
Rather, its role is to review under the Convention the decisions taken by them in the exercise of their powers (c.f. Tkácik v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 42472/98, 14 October 2003; Farkas v. Hungary (dec.), no. 31561/96, 2 March 2000; Bronda v. Italy, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1491, § 59). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
The Government, with reference to the Court's judgments in the cases of Selmouni v. France ([GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), Ribitsch v. Austria (judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336) and Tomasi v. France (judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A), accepted that where an individual was taken into custody but was found to be injured at the time of his release, it was incumbent on the State under Article 3 to provide a plausible explanation as to the cause of that injury. - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
For its part, the Court is satisfied that the investigations conducted were thorough and capable of leading to the identification and punishment of any State agent found to be responsible in the light of the evidence gathered (compare and contrast, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 130-136, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
However, the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, § 122).
- EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 44, 20 July 2004, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07
GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE
Pour pouvoir être jugé effectif, un recours doit être susceptible de remédier directement à la situation incriminée et présenter des perspectives raisonnables de succès (Sejdovic c. Italie [GC], no 56581/00, § 46, CEDH 2006-II, Vuckovic et autres, précité, § 74 et Balogh c. Hongrie, no 47940/99, § 30, 20 juillet 2004). - EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 7334/13
MURSIC v. CROATIA
To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly resolving the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
- EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12
M.S. v. CROATIA
To be effective, a remedy must be capable of directly resolving the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004). - EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13
PAJIC v. CROATIA
To be effective, a remedy must be capable of resolving directly the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004). - EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14
HAÁSZ v. HUNGARY
I am aware of the line of cases according to which, if a criminal report or complaint has been filed with the police or the prosecutor, the victim should not be required to lodge a further criminal complaint with the competent court (see, for example, Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, §§ 31-32, 20 July 2004; Stojnšek v. Slovenia, no. 1926/03, § 79, 23 June 2009; Gubacsi v. Hungary, no. 44686/07, § 32, 28 June 2011; Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, § 26, 26 June 2012; Volk v. Slovenia, no. 62120/09, § 78, 13 December 2012; Otašević v. Serbia, no. 32198/07, § 25, 5 February 2013; Lakatoš and Others v. Serbia, no. 3363/08, § 80, 7 January 2014; and Milić and Nikezić v. Montenegro, nos. - EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 21794/08
[ENG]
To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004). - EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 64682/12
Rumänischer Ex-Häftling erhält von Belgien 10.000EUR wegen schlechter …
Pour pouvoir être jugé effectif, un recours doit être susceptible de remédier directement à la situation incriminée et présenter des perspectives raisonnables de succès (Balogh c. Hongrie, no 47940/99, § 30, 20 juillet 2004, et Sejdovic c. Italie [GC], no 56581/00, § 46, CEDH 2006-II). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00
RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Cependant, le recours requis par l'article 13 doit être « effectif'en pratique comme en droit, en ce sens qu'il doit empêcher la survenance de la violation alléguée ou remédier à la situation litigieuse, ou fournir un redressement approprié pour toute violation s'étant déjà produite (Balogh c. Hongrie, no 47940/99, § 30, 20 juillet 2004, et Kudla c. Pologne [GC], no 30210/96, § 158, CEDH 2000-XI). - EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 47045/06
[ENG]
Nevertheless, the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies only requires that an applicant make normal use of remedies which are effective, sufficient and accessible in respect of his Convention grievances (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004). - EGMR, 28.08.2012 - 17153/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 3363/08
LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 14777/08
ÖZTÜNÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00
ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13
KIM v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11
KUMMER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 51198/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 75915/12
POPOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 53736/08
RIÐIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 10044/11
GOLUBOVIC v. SERBIA and 8 other applications
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01
VLASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 40820/12
MARCAN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 4429/09
SEBALJ v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 3716/09
MILUNOVIC AND CEKRLIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02
WIKTORKO v. POLAND
- EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 55142/11
ÜNAL AKPINAR INSAAT IMALAT SANAYI VE TICARET S.A. ET AKPINAR YAPI SANAYI S.A. c. …
- EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 57980/11
ZHYZITSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.09.2013 - 36158/10
VELICKOVIC v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07
KUDRA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 15526/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07
SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 43569/13
SEKUL v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 31973/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 50132/12
MARIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 51166/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 12106/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 17647/04
EDWARDS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 38415/13
KOVACEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 679/11
SOLOMUN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 13006/13
IVINOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36044/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 41108/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 76476/12
YAVUZ SELIM GÜLER c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 5901/13
POZAIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 46282/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51355/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 46726/11
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 67604/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 38280/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 1926/03
STOJNSEK v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 67542/01
GUSEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 35349/05
FLERI SOLER ET CAMILLERI c. MALTE
- EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 36822/02
BRACCI c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 19664/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 29597/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 66942/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20287/10
SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 42550/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 43317/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 40523/08
PESA v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 26137/04
BARTA v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 58081/00
LESCHIUTTA c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 25771/03
ALSAYED ALLAHAM v. GREECE
- EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 58971/00
RADOSLAV POPOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 31122/05
GHIGO v. MALTA
- EGMR, 08.09.2015 - 18988/11
AKTAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 44753/12
GÉGÉNY v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 30308/05
ÇAVDAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 80909/12
STARCEVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 13073/03
PAROISSE GRECO-CATHOLIQUE REMETI PE SOMES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 42009/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 5288/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 54655/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 4464/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 21188/09
GLUHAKOVIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 11336/06
KHRISTOFOROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 17765/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 6973/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 68356/01
DOINOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 58411/00
FRACCARO c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 62094/00
MAJADALLAH c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 14.10.2014 - 43469/09
[FRE]
- EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 1108/02
KOLEVI v. BULGARIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 47940/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BALOGH CONTRE LA HONGRIE
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BALOGH AGAINST HUNGARY
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 47940/99
- EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 47940/99
Wird zitiert von ... (3)
- EGMR, 27.04.2006 - 40986/98
SONER ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Il n'est donc pas démontré de manière convaincante qu'en l'espèce les lésions du requérant résultaient d'un traitement autre que celui qui aurait été infligé pendant la garde à vue ou pendant l'arrestation (comparer avec Klaas, précité, et voir, par exemple, Balogh c. Hongrie, no 47940/99, § 52, 20 juillet 2004, et Rehbock, précité, §§ 68-78). - EGMR, 12.10.2010 - 24397/03
AYAN c. TURQUIE
Contrairement à ce qui est sous-entendu dans l'évaluation médicale produite plus de huit ans et demi après les faits (paragraphe 29 in fine ci-dessus) - soit trop tardivement pour être probante (Olszewski c. Pologne (déc.), no 55264/00, 13 novembre 2003 ; Dursun Çevik c. Turquie (déc.), no 57406/00, 10 octobre 2006 ; comparer avec Kelekçiler, précité, ibidem ; et Balogh c. Hongrie, no 47940/99, § 49, 20 juillet 2004) -, la Cour estime que cette troisième blessure, à l'instar des deux premières (paragraphe 47 ci-dessus), pourrait elle aussi avoir été subie pendant, voire avant l'arrestation. - EGMR, 30.09.2003 - 76472/01
DOVAL v. SLOVAKIA
The fact that the applicant subsequently requested the General Prosecutor's Office to review their conclusion cannot affect the position as the documents submitted do not show that the new request was based on relevant new information (see, a contrario, Balogh v. Hungary (dec.), no. 47940/99, 13 May 2003).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 47940/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 47940/99
- EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 47940/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (1)
- EKMR, 06.03.1991 - 13251/87
BERNS AND EWERT v. LUXEMBOURG
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 47940/99
To be effective, a remedy must be capable of remedying directly the impugned state of affairs (Mathias Berns and Joseph Ewert v. Luxembourg, no. 13251/87, Commission decision of 6 March 1991, DR 68, pp. 137, 164).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".