Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.09.2003 - 50222/99
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

Wird zitiert von ... (53)

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

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

  Weitere Faktoren sind u.a. der Zweck, zu dem die Behandlung erfolgte, die dahinterstehende Absicht oder die Beweggründe dafür (…vgl. u.a. Aksoy ./. Türkei, 18. Dezember 1996,Rdnr. 64, Berichte 1996-VI;… Egmez ./. Zypern, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 30873/96, Rdnr. 78, ECHR 2000-XII; und Krastanov ./. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 50222/99, Rdnr. 53, 30. September 2004), sowie der Kontext, in dem sie erfolgte, z.B. in einer sehr angespannten und emotional aufgeladenen Atmosphäre (…vgl. z.B. Selmouni, a.a.O., Rdnr. 104 und Egmez, a.a.O.).
• EGMR, 30.06.2008 - 22978/05

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Fortwirkung von Verstößen gegen die …

  Die Befragung dauerte jedoch nur etwa 10 Minuten und, wie in dem Strafverfahren gegen die Polizeibeamten festgestellt wurde (…siehe Rdnr. 46), fand sie in einer sehr angespannten und emotional aufgeladenen Atmosphäre statt, was darauf zurückzuführen war, dass die völlig erschöpften und unter hohem Druck stehenden Polizeibeamten glaubten, sie hätten nur ein paar Stunden, um J.s Leben zu retten; diese Merkmale können als strafmildernde Faktoren angesehen werden (vgl. Egmez , a.a.O., Rdnr. 78, und Krastanov ./. Bulgarien , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 50222/99, Rdnr. 53, 30. September 2004).
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 17828/05

  OCHELKOV v. RUSSIA

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  This is so because, if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity, and the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice (see, among many other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2431, § 74; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-IV; Velikova v. Bulgaria, no. 41488/98, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 83, ECHR 2000-VII; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 57, 14 December 2000; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 105, 4 May 2001; Avsar v. Turkey [GC], no. 25657/94, § 377, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  BURES v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Wilful ill-treatment of persons who are within the control of agents of the State cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 130, 29 July 2010).

  In respect of persons deprived of their liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by their own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the detainee's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 20756/04

  ISAYEV v. RUSSIA

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33470/03

  ANTIPENKOV v. RUSSIA

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court has held on many occasions that this requirement cannot be satisfied solely by instituting civil proceedings (see, among other authorities, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36220/02

  BARABANSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any 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 of the Convention (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 38; and Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

  The authorities thus had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 9297/02

  NADROSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 28847/08

  GLADOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 43239/04

  RUDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.07.2013 - 32133/11

  KUMMER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 31.03.2009 - 14612/02

  WIKTORKO v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 46793/06

  BULDASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

  YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

  GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 43233/02

  MAKSIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  MIHHAILOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 15526/10

  V.D. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 14030/03

  SHCHUKIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  ARTYOMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19072/08

  HABIMI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 22485/05

  FILATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38047/04

  SHUVALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 10393/04

  NIKOLAY FEDOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 6887/02

  ELDAR IMANOV AND AZHDAR IMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 2807/04

  GLADYSHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 34027/03

  DUR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.07.2007 - 36672/97

  KURNAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 34140/07

  KIRINS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 24213/08

  BASENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 34108/07

  SOHBY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05

  ALCHAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 3937/03

  KONDRATISHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 1926/03

  STOJNSEK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 29766/03

  KARATEPE AND ULAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 14166/02

  ESER CEYLAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 77092/01

  NECDET BULUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 18293/03

  PELECKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 24129/11

  O.R. AND L.R. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 22867/05

  ABLYAZOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 41250/02

  MIRCEA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 17044/02

  ZHOVTAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 21533/07

  KRYAT v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 24460/04

  SHANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 51083/09

  REILLY v. IRELAND