Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUBBINS c. ROYAUME-UNI [Extraits]

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 2 en ce qui concerne le manquement allégué de l'Etat à protéger le droit à la vie Non-violation de l'art. 2 en ce qui concerne l'effectivité de l'enquête Violation de l'art. 13 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 as regards the State's alleged failure to protect the right to life No violation of Art. 2 as regards the effectiveness of the investigation Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 50196/99
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

Wird zitiert von ... (46)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14

  HAÁSZ v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, the Court has held in previous cases that, in carrying out its assessment of the planning and control phase of law-enforcement operations from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention, it must have particular regard to the context in which the incident occurred, as well as to the way in which the situation developed (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 141, ECHR 2005-II (extracts).

  Given that officer K., for good reasons, honestly believed that it was necessary to open fire in order to protect his associate's life and limb, the Court should have reached the conclusion that the use of potentially lethal force was "absolutely necessary" (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 64-66, ECHR 2004-XI; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 138, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); and Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 189, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 52391/99

  RAMSAHAI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  To hold otherwise would be to impose an unrealistic burden on the State and its law-enforcement personnel in the execution of their duty, perhaps to the detriment of their lives and the lives of others (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 58-59, § 200; more recently, Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 138, ECHR 2005-II. (extracts)).

  In any case, some limits to public scrutiny are admitted (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 157-158, 17 March 2005, where the Court accepted that the effectiveness of the inquest was not undermined on account of the decision to grant anonymity to Officers A, B, C and D).

• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2694/08

  REYNOLDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In particular, it has considered whether there is an arguable claim of a breach of Article 2 of the Convention and whether civil proceedings for establishing any liability and, if so, awarding non-pecuniary damages were available to the applicant in that respect (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 123-133, ECHR 2001-III; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 96-102, ECHR 2002-II; and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 173/176, ECHR 2005-II).

  The most therefore that could be recovered under the 1934 Act on behalf of the deceased's estate would have been the funeral expenses (as regards the 1976 and 1934 Acts, see the above-cited Keenan judgment, § 129 and Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 172, ECHR 2005-II).

• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 53087/07

  [FRE]

  Pour le Gouvernement, il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour (il cite l'arrêt Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 139, CEDH 2005-II) que, dans les circonstances de la cause, la Cour ne peut substituer sa propre appréciation de la situation à celle du lieutenant M.E. qui, selon le Gouvernement, a dû réagir dans le feu de l'action à ce qu'il aurait perçu de bonne foi comme une situation dangereuse.

  Pour apprécier si le recours à la force était nécessaire, la Cour « ne saurait (...) substituer sa propre appréciation de la situation à celle de l'agent qui a dû réagir, dans le feu de l'action, à ce qu'il percevait sincèrement comme un danger afin de sauver sa vie'(Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 139, CEDH 2005-II (extraits)).

• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The Court must also be cautious about revisiting the events with the wisdom of hindsight (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 2 other applications

  The Court, which is far removed from the events, must be extremely cautious about revisiting any of the choices that the authorities made in those respects with the wisdom of hindsight - something to be resisted even when examining whether the authorities have used force which was "more than absolutely necessary", where, as already noted, a much stricter standard applies (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, § 104, 13 March 2007; and Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, § 110, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32245/19

  MACHALIKASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In view of the fundamental nature of the right to life, the circumstances in which deprivation of life may be justified must be strictly construed (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 150 and 194, Series A no. 324; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 135-36, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 64937/19

  ELVAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Quant à l'obligation faite aux autorités en charge de la planification et de la direction des opérations policières de réduire le plus possible en pareille circonstance les atteintes au droit à la vie, le Gouvernement se réfère aux principes jurisprudentiels y afférents (Andronicou et Constantinou c. Chypre, 9 octobre 1997, § 182, Recueil 1997-VI, Mahmut Kaya c. Turquie, no 22535/93, § 86, CEDH 2000-III, Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, §§ 136 et 141, CEDH 2005-II (extraits), Yüksel Erdoğan et autres c. Turquie, no 57049/00, § 86, 15 février 2007, et Huohvanainen c. Finlande, no 57389/00, § 94, 13 mars 2007).
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  Against this background, the Court has previously noted that in cases involving a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 97 and 101, ECHR 2002-II; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 171, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Reynolds v. the United Kingdom, no. 2694/08, §§ 65-68, 13 March 2012; and Movsesyan v. Armenia, no. 27524/09, § 73, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 16281/10

  [FRE]

  Lorsqu'elle est appelée à décider si le recours à la force meurtrière était légitime, la Cour ne saurait, en réfléchissant dans la sérénité des délibérations, substituer sa propre appréciation de la situation à celle de l'agent qui a dû réagir, dans le feu de l'action, à ce qu'il percevait sincèrement comme un danger, afin de sauver sa vie (Bubbins c. Royaume-Uni, no 50196/99, § 139, CEDH 2005-II).
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 58447/00

  ZAVOLOKA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98

  MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

  NIKA v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 13326/18

  PÂRVU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 23029/04

  SAHISMAIL CAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 50283/13

  FOUNTAS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 51210/99

  NEHYET GÜNAY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 22459/04

  PARLAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

  VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 28975/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 15750/02

  UYAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 40957/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 21449/04

  CELNIKU c. GRECE
• EGMR, 03.12.2024 - 18980/20

  ÖZDEMIR c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 31754/18

  BOURAS c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23524/14

  MÎTU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 23038/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 2186/12

  YENGIBARYAN AND SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 33862/17

  KHAYAURI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 11464/12

  YUKHYMOVYCH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 50739/99

  PERK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 65774/11

  SAVEYKINY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 38804/09

  DELICE c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 47357/08

  ALIKAJ ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 2474/21

  GARAND ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 56717/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 55434/00

  BOYLE, THOMPSON ET BELL AFFAIRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

  VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 78019/17

  Russland wegen Tötung zweier Hirten zu Schadensersatz verurteilt - Russland wegen …
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 26330/12

  BLONSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 40073/98

  IHSAN BILGIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 21302/13

  TONKEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 5527/08

  BENNETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM