Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2021,130
EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13 (https://dejure.org/2021,130)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.01.2021 - 50231/13 (https://dejure.org/2021,130)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. Januar 2021 - 50231/13 (https://dejure.org/2021,130)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2021,130) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SABALIC v. CROATIA

    Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (44)Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 47159/08

    [FRE]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    Discriminatory remarks and racist insults must in any event be considered as an aggravating factor when considering a given instance of ill-treatment in the light of Article 3 (see B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 40, 24 July 2012; Abdu v. Bulgaria, no. 26827/08, § 23, 11 March 2014; and Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 65, 12 May 2015).

    Owing to the interplay of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention in the context of violence motivated by discrimination, issues such as those raised by the present case may fall to be examined under Article 3 alone, with no separate issue arising under Article 14, or may require examination of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14. This is a question to be decided in each case depending on the facts and the nature of the allegations made (see, for example, B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 59, 24 July 2012, and Škorjanec, cited above, § 37).

  • EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 26827/08

    ABDU v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    Discriminatory remarks and racist insults must in any event be considered as an aggravating factor when considering a given instance of ill-treatment in the light of Article 3 (see B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 40, 24 July 2012; Abdu v. Bulgaria, no. 26827/08, § 23, 11 March 2014; and Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 65, 12 May 2015).

    However, in view of the injuries which the applicant sustained and the hate motivated violence against her (see paragraph 70 above), the Court considers that the applicant's complaint should be examined under Article 3 (compare Abdu v. Bulgaria, no. 26827/08, § 39, 11 March 2014, and Škorjanec, cited above, § 36).

  • EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 24130/11

    FRISVOLD AND FLOM-JACOBSEN v. NORWAY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    In the Government's view, these decisions were in compliance with the Court's case-law concerning the ne bis in idem principle set out in Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009) and Maresti (cited above), while the case-law in A and B v. Norway ([GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, 15 November 2016) was still not applicable at the relevant time.
  • EGMR, 08.07.2019 - 54012/10

    MIHALACHE v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    The grounds justifying the reopening of proceedings must be such as to affect the outcome of the case (see Mihalache v. Romania [GC], no. 54012/10, §§ 129 and 133, 8 July 2019; compare Taşdemir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 52538/09, 12 March 2019, where there may be de jure obstacles to reopening the investigation).
  • EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    The important point for the Court to review, therefore, is whether and to what extent the courts, in reaching their conclusion, might be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place and the significance of the role it was required to play in preventing violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment are not undermined (see Beganović, cited above, § 77, citing Ali and Ayşe Duran v. Turkey, no. 42942/02, §§ 61-62, 8 April 2008; see also Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 285, 30 March 2016).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    Firstly, the Court's judgment directly affects M.M.'s fundamental rights, whereas this person has never been heard in the proceedings before the Court (on this issue, see my separate opinions appended to the judgments in the following cases: Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015; Kosmas and Others v. Greece, no. 20086/13, 29 June 2017; A and B v. Croatia, no. 7144/15, 20 June 2019; and Liamberi and Others v. Greece, no. 18312/12, 8 October 2020).
  • EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 25536/14

    SKORJANEC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    The same is true for a civil action for protection from discrimination, particularly given that the applicant had already raised her discrimination complaint in the criminal complaint she lodged with the relevant State Attorney's Office (see Škorjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, § 47, 28 March 2017, with further references; see also paragraphs 16 and 20 above).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 48254/99

    COBZARU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    (i) In case of a failure of the domestic authorities to take all reasonable steps to effectively ascertain whether or not a discriminatory attitude might have played a role in the events (see, for instance, Šečić v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, §§ 68-69, 31 May 2007; Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 48254/99, § 96, 26 July 2007; Milanović, cited above, § 100; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, § 239, 12 June 2012; B.S. v. Spain, cited above, § 61; Makhashevy v. Russia, no. 20546/07, § 146, 31 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, § 224, 2 October 2012; Abdu, cited above, § 35; Begheluri, cited above, § 177; Identoba and Others, cited above, § 80; M.C. and A.C., cited above, § 125; and Lakatošová and Lakatoš v. Slovakia, no. 655/16, § 96, 11 December 2018);.
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    Compliance with the State's positive obligations requires that the domestic legal system must demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against the perpetrators of such violent acts (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Koky and Others v. Slovakia, no. 13624/03, § 239, 12 June 2012; and Amadayev v. Russia, no. 18114/06, § 81, 3 July 2014).
  • EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 25018/10

    DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
    (ii) Where the criminal proceedings are discontinued on formal grounds, without having the facts of the case established by a competent criminal court, owing to the flaws in the actions of the relevant State authorities (see, for instance, Turan Cakir v. Belgium, no. 44256/06, § 80, 10 March 2009; Beganović, cited above, § 85; Muta v. Ukraine, no. 37246/06, § 63, 31 July 2012; M.N. v. Bulgaria, no. 3832/06, § 46, 27 November 2012; Remetin, cited above, § 99; Valiulienė, cited above, § 85; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, § 52, 16 April 2013; Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 45, 14 November 2013; Ceachir v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 50115/06, § 54, 10 December 2013; and İbrahim Demirtaş v. Turkey, no. 25018/10, §§ 34-35, 28 October 2014);.
  • EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15

    A AND B v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 54755/08

    NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

    MYUMYUN c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

    PULFER v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 12294/07

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 1249/03

    ATALAY v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16

    LAKATOSOVÁ AND LAKATOS v. SLOVAKIA

  • EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 13274/11

    PAVLOVIC AND OTHERS AGAINST CROATIA

  • EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 3832/06

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

    AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 20086/13

    KOSMAS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 17253/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 18312/12

    LIAMBERI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  • EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 20325/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 21.02.2018 - 50115/06

    CEACHIR CONTRE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 04.06.2009 - 21609/06

    MODRIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12

    IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  • EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 12060/12

    M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
  • EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

    KU? IC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 15529/12

    BALÁZS v. HUNGARY

  • RG, 13.02.1924 - V 29/23

    Muß der Testamentsvollstrecker den zur Vorbereitung der Erbteilung erforderlichen …

  • EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 215/19

    Diskriminierung: Deutschland hat Racial-Profiling-Vorwurf nicht genug geprüft

    The authorities must do what is reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of racially induced violence (see B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 58, 24 July 2012; Boac and Others v. Romania, no. 40355/11, §§ 105-06, 12 January 2016; Burlya and Others, cited above, § 128; and Sabali v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, §§ 94 and 98, 14 January 2021, with further references).
  • EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 33056/17

    TKHELIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Compliance with the State's positive obligations requires that the domestic legal system demonstrate its capacity to enforce criminal law against the perpetrators of such violent acts (see Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 95, 14 January 2021).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17

    MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN

    If a criminal remedy is required, it may be initiated by the victim (contrary to some other criminal legal systems; see Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 105, 14 January 2021), and then the State pursues the matter through the investigating judge and the prosecutor.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht