Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMESOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SAMESOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (48)Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 45044/06

  KSENZ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  It therefore rejected the Government's explanations in which they denied the State's responsibility for alleged police ill-treatment relying on the results of pre-investigation inquiries (see Olisov and Others, cited above, § 82; Aleksandr Konovalov, cited above, § 41; Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, § 104, 12 December 2017; and Sergey Ivanov, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4722/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  The mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of police ill-treatment has been considered indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 129 and 132-36 and follow-up cases, in which the Government acknowledged a violation under the procedural aspect of Article 3, such as Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, §§ 35-38, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, §§ 67-72, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 44-45, 8 October 2015; and Ovakimyan v. Russia, no. 52796/08, §§ 42, 49-53, 21 February 2017; and also many other authorities, in which a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb was found, including Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, §§ 78-81, 11 October 2016; Morgunov v. Russia, no. 32546/08, §§ 38-39, 11 April 2017; Kondakov v. Russia, no. 31632/10, §§ 33-34, 2 May 2017; Sitnikov v. Russia, no. 14769/09, §§ 38-39, 2 May 2017; Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 52783/08

  PETROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  The mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of police ill-treatment has been considered indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 129 and 132-36 and follow-up cases, in which the Government acknowledged a violation under the procedural aspect of Article 3, such as Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, §§ 35-38, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, §§ 67-72, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 44-45, 8 October 2015; and Ovakimyan v. Russia, no. 52796/08, §§ 42, 49-53, 21 February 2017; and also many other authorities, in which a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb was found, including Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, §§ 78-81, 11 October 2016; Morgunov v. Russia, no. 32546/08, §§ 38-39, 11 April 2017; Kondakov v. Russia, no. 31632/10, §§ 33-34, 2 May 2017; Sitnikov v. Russia, no. 14769/09, §§ 38-39, 2 May 2017; Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 38887/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  The mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of police ill-treatment has been considered indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 129 and 132-36 and follow-up cases, in which the Government acknowledged a violation under the procedural aspect of Article 3, such as Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, §§ 35-38, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, §§ 67-72, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 44-45, 8 October 2015; and Ovakimyan v. Russia, no. 52796/08, §§ 42, 49-53, 21 February 2017; and also many other authorities, in which a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb was found, including Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, §§ 78-81, 11 October 2016; Morgunov v. Russia, no. 32546/08, §§ 38-39, 11 April 2017; Kondakov v. Russia, no. 31632/10, §§ 33-34, 2 May 2017; Sitnikov v. Russia, no. 14769/09, §§ 38-39, 2 May 2017; Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 10825/09

  OLISOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 81-82, 2 May 2017; Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 37-38, 28 November 2017; and Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no. 14416/06, §§ 81-83, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 24893/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  It falls to the State to have recourse to a procedure which would enable it to take all measures necessary for it to comply with its positive obligation of effective investigation imposed by Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, §§ 64, 68 and 69, 7 January 2010; see also Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 79, 3 November 2011; Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 87, 24 January 2012; and Nitsov v. Russia, no. 35389/04, § 60, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 31316/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  The mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of police ill-treatment has been considered indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 129 and 132-36 and follow-up cases, in which the Government acknowledged a violation under the procedural aspect of Article 3, such as Gorshchuk v. Russia, no. 31316/09, §§ 35-38, 6 October 2015; Turbylev v. Russia, no. 4722/09, §§ 67-72, 6 October 2015; Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, §§ 44-45, 8 October 2015; and Ovakimyan v. Russia, no. 52796/08, §§ 42, 49-53, 21 February 2017; and also many other authorities, in which a violation of Article 3 under its procedural limb was found, including Leonid Petrov v. Russia, no. 52783/08, §§ 78-81, 11 October 2016; Morgunov v. Russia, no. 32546/08, §§ 38-39, 11 April 2017; Kondakov v. Russia, no. 31632/10, §§ 33-34, 2 May 2017; Sitnikov v. Russia, no. 14769/09, §§ 38-39, 2 May 2017; Olisov and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  It falls to the State to have recourse to a procedure which would enable it to take all measures necessary for it to comply with its positive obligation of effective investigation imposed by Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, §§ 64, 68 and 69, 7 January 2010; see also Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 79, 3 November 2011; Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 87, 24 January 2012; and Nitsov v. Russia, no. 35389/04, § 60, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 14383/03

  SASHOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  It falls to the State to have recourse to a procedure which would enable it to take all measures necessary for it to comply with its positive obligation of effective investigation imposed by Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Sashov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 14383/03, §§ 64, 68 and 69, 7 January 2010; see also Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, § 79, 3 November 2011; Nechto v. Russia, no. 24893/05, § 87, 24 January 2012; and Nitsov v. Russia, no. 35389/04, § 60, 3 May 2012).
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 14416/06

  Russland muss gefoltertem Mann 50.000 Euro Entschädigung zahlen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 57269/14

  10825/09 and 2 others, §§ 81-82, 2 May 2017; Aleksandr Konovalov v. Russia, no. 39708/07, §§ 37-38, 28 November 2017; and Sergey Ivanov v. Russia, no. 14416/06, §§ 81-83, 15 May 2018).
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 35389/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 39708/07

  KONOVALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2016 - 34636/09

  GORYACHKIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.04.2017 - 32546/08

  MORGUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 31632/10

  KONDAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 14769/09

  SITNIKOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 52796/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 63638/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 36716/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.05.2024 - 4573/22

  ZAREMA MUSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The above allegations (see paragraph 16 above) were not duly investigated, contrary to the authorities' procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 35880/14

  ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously held that the mere carrying out of a pre-investigation inquiry, when this is not followed by a preliminary investigation, is insufficient for the authorities to comply with the requirements of an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment by the police under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin, cited above, § 136, and, more recently, Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, § 51, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 25276/15

  VERZILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The authorities had to initiate an investigation proper, in which the whole range of investigative measures could be carried out, including the questioning of witnesses, confrontations and identification parades (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 129 and 132-36, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 51-52 and 54, 20 November 2018).

• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17054/08

  [ENG]

  The Court has held, however, that the mere carrying out of a pre-investigation inquiry, not followed by an investigation proper, in which the whole range of investigative measures may be carried out, including the questioning of witnesses, confrontations and identification parades, is insufficient for the authorities to comply with the requirements of an effective investigation into credible allegations of ill-treatment by the police under Article 3 of the Convention (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 132-137, 24 July 2014, and, more recently, Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, § 51, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 27284/17

  KOZAYEV v. RUSSIA and 26 other applications

  Rn. 9 Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities' refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State's failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 60851/12

  VARZHABETYAN v. RUSSIA and 15 other applications

  Rn. 9 Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities' refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State's failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 41071/18

  TINGAYEV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  Rn. 9 Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities' refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State's failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 75045/11

  PUGACHEV v. RUSSIA and 14 other applications

  Rn. 12 Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities' refusal to open a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State's failure to fulfil its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 4792/22

  ABAKUMETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 9 Furthermore, in the cases of Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 128-40, 24 July 2014, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 54-63, 20 November 2018, as well as in Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland, no. 76813/16, § 88, 2 September 2021, the Court has already found, in particular, that the authorities' refusal to institute a fully-fledged criminal investigation into the credible allegations of ill-treatment, as well as the lack of assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the use of lawful force by the police were indicative of the State's failure to comply with its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 28834/19

  LAPUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 114 The Court reiterates that in cases of credible allegations of ill-treatment, an inquiry alone is not capable of leading to the punishment of those responsible, and it is incumbent on the authorities to open a criminal case and conduct a fully-fledged criminal investigation (see Lyapin, cited above, §§ 129 and 132-36, and Samesov v. Russia, no. 57269/14, §§ 57-59, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 26454/13

  ARKHIPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 26955/20

  ZARIPOV v. RUSSIA and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 62807/09

  MASLOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 40311/19

  MUZHETSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 54250/18

  KOLESNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 58772/18

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 18032/19

  BARONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 41761/20

  KUSHNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 30389/19

  GOLOVACHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 58533/18

  SHAROV v. RUSSIA and 18 other applications
• EGMR, 20.07.2023 - 35101/21

  YARTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.07.2023 - 2926/19

  BENYASH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 16678/17

  CHEMURZIYEVA v. RUSSIA an d4 other applications
• EGMR, 06.02.2025 - 12881/21

  LYANOV v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 15380/19

  TARASOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.07.2023 - 15492/19

  DOLGUSHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 52734/16 (anhängig)

  LEBEDEV AND BODNAR v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 12.06.2025 - 19338/20

  KULYAMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2024 - 71671/16

  F.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 12.09.2024 - 2504/19

  FRENKEL v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 31186/22

  KOMPANEYETS v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 76614/12

  TEMERKHANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 1223/12

  DOKUKINY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 74305/17

  ZEMAITIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR - 67357/17 (anhängig)

  TORCHINSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 32118/21

  KUTSENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2025 - 54308/18

  KOSTYLENKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 16334/20

  DUBININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 71889/11

  NIKONOROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 30227/18

  YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 37735/09

  A. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2025 - 749/07

  RUDNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 13768/06

  BOZHKOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 8971/10

  GOGALADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 77068/14 (anhängig)

  KARPYUK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 5841/23

  BORZENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 15010/11

  PUZYREV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2020 - 25238/08

  SARSEMBAYEV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TORANZO GOMEZ v. SPAIN

  Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TORANZO GOMEZ v. SPAIN - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-general (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

• juris (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Spanien verurteilt: Ab wann eine Polizeimaßnahme "Folter" heißen darf

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt Toranzo Gomez c. Espagne - accusation de torture contre la police ayant conduit à une condamnation pour diffamation

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Judgment Toranzo Gomez v. Spain - torture accusation against police led to slander conviction

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TORANZO GOMEZ v. SPAIN

  Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• StV 2020, 168 (Ls.)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 39660/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  In the Court's view, the above sanction may have had a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the applicant's freedom of expression as it may have discouraged him from criticising the actions of public officials (see, mutatis mutandis, Lewandowska-Malec v. Poland, no. 39660/07, § 70, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The general principles applicable to cases in which the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention has to be balanced against the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention were summarised by the Court's Grand Chamber in Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], (no 17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017) and Perinçek (cited above) § 198, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), which overviewed the Court's case-law established in Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) ([GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 104-07, ECHR 2012) and Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, §§ 85-88, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  As noted by the Grand Chamber in Perinçek v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27510/08), these principles were recently restated in Mouvement raëlien suisse v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 16354/06, § 48, ECHR 2012) and Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48876/08, § 100, ECHR 2013), and can be summarised in this way:.

• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13

  KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  42461/13 and 44357/13, § 144, ECHR 2016 (extracts).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The Court also finds that no account was taken concerning whether the statements advocated the use of violence, or whether other means were available for replying to the allegations before resorting to criminal proceedings, which the Court has considered essential elements to be taken in consideration (see, Perinçek, cited above, §§ 204-08; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96

  CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The Government submitted that the present case was similar to the case of CumpÇŽnÇŽ and MazÇŽre v. Romania ([GC], no. 33348/96), which had concerned the compatibility with the Convention of criminal proceedings followed against two journalists who had published an article accusing a former deputy mayor and a judge of committing a series of offences.
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95

  SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  The Court also finds that no account was taken concerning whether the statements advocated the use of violence, or whether other means were available for replying to the allegations before resorting to criminal proceedings, which the Court has considered essential elements to be taken in consideration (see, Perinçek, cited above, §§ 204-08; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 61, ECHR 1999-IV; and Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 46, Series A no. 236).
• EGMR, 12.07.2001 - 29032/95

  Feldek ./. Slowakei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  Indeed, the Court considers that there is nothing in the case to suggest that the applicant's allegations were made otherwise than in good faith and in pursuit of the legitimate aim of debating a matter of public interest (see, mutatis mutandis, Ghiulfer Predescu v. Romania, no. 29751/09, § 59, 27 June 2017, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  More specifically, the Court considered that reputation had been deemed to be an independent right mostly when the factual allegations were of such a seriously offensive nature that their publication had an inevitable direct effect on the applicant's private life (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009, and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 26922/14

  More specifically, the Court considered that reputation had been deemed to be an independent right mostly when the factual allegations were of such a seriously offensive nature that their publication had an inevitable direct effect on the applicant's private life (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009, and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 40, 21 September 2010).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 29751/09

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.05.2021 - 57574/14

  MILOSAVLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Moreover, while restricting an applicant's right to criticise the actions of public powers by imposing an obligation to accurately respect the legal definition of a given crime might, generally speaking, disproportionally undermine his or her right to freedom of expression, in the specific circumstances of the present case the applicant, as indeed any average citizen too, should have been able to make a common sense distinction between such sensitive yet very different phrases as "attempted to rape" stated as fact, on the one hand, and, for example, "suspected of having attempted to rape" on the other (compare and contrast to Toranzo Gomez v. Spain, no. 26922/14, § 65, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 27925/21

  Pablo Hasél

  Rn. 49 The Court has previously found that it was within the legitimate exercise of the freedom of expression to describe, at a press conference, the police's action against an applicant as torture, given the colloquial nature used by the applicant to criticise that action (see Toranzo Gomez v. Spain, no. 26922/14, §§ 58-63, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 63782/11

  ROMANOV v. UKRAINE

  What is relevant here is whether the nature of the statements contained in the newspapers distributed by the applicant attracted protection under Article 10 of the Convention, which is ultimately for the Court to decide, while having regard to the findings of the Ukrainian courts in this connection (see, mutatis mutandis, Toranzo Gomez v. Spain, no. 26922/14, § 54, 20 November 2018).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PULFER v. ALBANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (englisch)

Sonstiges (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PULFER v. ALBANIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)

  Annonce d"arrêts et décisions 20-22.11.18

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Sonstiges)

  Forthcoming judgments and decisions 20-22.11.18

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 126-127, 20 March 2018), which reads as follows:.

  For an examination of the complaints, the application as formulated in the application form should be the starting-point (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 122, 20 March 2018).

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  The Court observes that effective measures of deterrence against grave acts such as those in issue in the present case, can only be achieved by the existence of effective criminal-law provisions backed up by law-enforcement machinery (X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27 Series A no. 91, Beganović, cited above, § 71, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-III and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  The Court observes that effective measures of deterrence against grave acts such as those in issue in the present case, can only be achieved by the existence of effective criminal-law provisions backed up by law-enforcement machinery (X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27 Series A no. 91, Beganović, cited above, § 71, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-III and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 150, ECHR 2003-XII).

• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  ATESOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  Furthermore, an amnesty or a pardon is not compatible with the duty incumbent on the States to investigate acts of ill-treatment and to combat impunity (see, mutatis mutandis, Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004; and Ateşoğlu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 25, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 1249/03

  ATALAY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  The Court must grant substantial deference to the national courts in the choice of appropriate measures, while also maintaining a certain power of review and the power to intervene in cases of manifest disproportion between the seriousness of the act and the results obtained at the domestic level (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 62, 20 December 2007; Atalay v. Turkey, no. 1249/03, § 40, 18 September 2008; and Valiulienė, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 47666/13

  Z.B. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  However, under the principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory but practical and effective rights, the Court has to ensure that a State's obligation to protect the rights of those under its jurisdiction is adequately discharged in practice (see Ž.B. v. Croatia, no. 47666/13, § 59, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  No such particular reason exists in the present case and the issue of the applicability of Article 3 falls to be examined at the admissibility stage of the Convention (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 31959/13

  The civil remedies relied on by the Government cannot be regarded as sufficient for the fulfilment of a Contracting State's obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in cases such as the present one, as they are aimed at awarding damages rather than identifying and punishing those responsible (see Sandra Janković v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009; Beganović v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 56, 25 June 2009; and Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 76, 11 December 2012).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 70934/10

  GÜNANA c. TURQUIE et 4 autres affaires

  (Requêtes nos 70934/10, 6560/11, 23599/12, 39367/12 et 66687/12).

  À l'origine de l'affaire se trouvent cinq requêtes (nos 70934/10, 6560/11, 23599/12, 39367/12 et 66687/12) dirigées contre la République de Turquie et dont trois ressortissants de cet État, MM.

  Turan Günana (requêtes nos 70934/10, 39367/12 et 66687/12), Musa Kaya (requête no 6560/11) et Halil Gündoğan (requête no 23599/12) (« les requérants "), ont saisi la Cour le 23 septembre 2010 (requête no 70934/10), le 12 octobre 2010 (requête no 6560/11), le 19 mars 2012 (requête no 23599/12), le 3 mai 2012 (requête no 39367/12) et le 1er octobre 2012 (requête no 66687/12) en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales (« la Convention ").

  Requête no 66687/12.

  Or, en l'espèce, les griefs des requérants se prêtent à un examen sous l'angle du droit à la liberté d'expression protégé par l'article 10 de la Convention dans la mesure où ils concernent non pas le refus d'envoyer ou de recevoir de simples lettres, mais la saisie de manuscrits d'un volume important à la suite des perquisitions effectuées dans les cellules des requérants (requêtes nos 70934/10, 6560/11, 39367/12 et 66687/12, paragraphes 6, 14, 22 et 31 ci-dessus) ou à l'occasion d'une tentative de l'intéressé de remettre son manuscrit à une personne venue lui rendre visite (requête no 23599/12, paragraphe 36 ci-dessus).

  La base légale invoquée dans le cadre des requêtes nos 39367/12 et 66687/12 est une circulaire de la direction générale des établissements pénitentiaires du ministère de la Justice du 24 novembre 2010 (paragraphes 15 et 23 ci-dessus), dont le contenu n'est explicité ni dans les décisions concernées ni dans les observations du Gouvernement.

  Le requérant Turan Günana allègue dans le cadre des requêtes nos 70934/10, 39367/12 et 66687/12 que l'absence de communication des avis du procureur de la République lors des procédures devant le juge de l'exécution et devant la cour d'assises porte atteinte au principe de l'égalité des armes.

  En ce qui concerne les avis du procureur de la République émis le 27 octobre 2011 et le 21 mars 2012 dans le cadre des requêtes no 39367/12 et no 66687/12, la Cour constate qu'aucune question nouvelle pouvant appeler des commentaires de la partie requérante n'était soulevée par ces avis.

  En l'absence d'argument ou de fait pouvant la conduire à une conclusion différente dans la présente espèce, la Cour déclare ce grief irrecevable en ce qui concerne les avis émis par le procureur de la République le 27 octobre 2011 et le 21 mars 2012 dans le cadre des requêtes no 39367/12 et no 66687/12, en application de l'article 35 §§ 3 b) et 4 de la Convention.

  Le requérant Turan Günana réclame 10 000 livres turques (TRY) pour préjudice matériel et 20 000 TRY pour préjudice moral dans le cadre de chacune des requêtes nos 70934/10, 39367/12 et 66687/12.

  Le requérant Turan Günana demande également 2 000 TRY pour les frais de traduction, de fournitures, de téléphone et d'envois postaux, et 14 000 TRY pour les frais d'avocat dans le cadre de chacune des requêtes nos 70934/10, 39367/12 et 66687/12.

  Déclare les requêtes nos 70934/10, 6560/11 et 23599/12 recevables et les requêtes nos 39367/12 et 66687/12 recevables quant au grief tiré de l'article 10 de la Convention et irrecevables pour le surplus ;.

• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 60561/14

  S.M. c. CROATIE

  La nature et la portée de l'obligation d'enquêter d'office que peuvent faire naître un grief défendable soulevé sous l'angle de l'article 4 ou un commencement de preuve d'un traitement contraire à cet article sont difficilement compatibles avec, d'une part, la reconnaissance que la Cour dit devoir à l'égard du rôle que jouent les cours et les tribunaux nationaux dans le choix des mesures à prendre (Beganović c. Croatie, no 46423/06, § 78, 25 juin 2009, et Pulfer c. Albanie, no 31959/13, § 81, 20 novembre 2018) et, d'autre part, la règle qui interdit à la Cour de se saisir de faits non mentionnés par le requérant et d'en vérifier la compatibilité avec la Convention (Foti et autres, précité, § 44).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 22597/16

  R.B. v. ESTONIA

  According to the Court's established case-law, a compensatory remedy cannot be regarded as adequate for the fulfilment of a State's obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to provide effective protection against serious attacks on the physical integrity of a person in cases such as the present one (see, for example, Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 76, 11 December 2012, and Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 71, 20 November 2018).

  The majority disagree and refer to Remetin v. Croatia (no. 29525/10, § 76, 11 December 2012) and Pulfer v. Albania (no. 31959/13, § 71, 20 November 2018) to support the holding that it was not necessary to have recourse to proceedings under the Act on Compensation for Damage Caused in Criminal Proceedings.

• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13

  SABALIC v. CROATIA

  The sole recourse to the minor offences proceedings against M.M. could be considered rather as a response that fosters a sense of impunity for the acts of violent hate crime, than as a procedural mechanism showing that such acts could in no way be tolerated (compare Milanović, cited above, § 100; and also Kopylov, cited above, § 141; Darraj, cited above, §§ 48-49; Zontul, cited above, §§ 106-109; and Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 88 in fine, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 32715/19

  SCAVONE c. ITALIE

  Ce principe a également été étendu aux actes de violence administrés par des particuliers (E.G. c. République de Moldova, no 37882/13, § 43, 13 avril 2021, et Pulfer c. Albanie, no 31959/13, § 83, 20 novembre 2018 ; voir aussi, pour une impunité résultant de l'intervention de la prescription, Ibrahim Demirtas c. Turquie, no 25018/10, § 35, 28 octobre 2014).
• EGMR, 12.12.2024 - 11829/16

  KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 194 In the light of the foregoing case-law principles (see also the case-law principles cited in paragraph 153 above), the Court will now examine whether the manner in which the criminal-law mechanisms were implemented in the instant case was defective to the point of constituting a violation of the respondent State's obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Valiulienė, cited above, § 79, and Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 85, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 04.09.2025 - 30556/22

  E.A. ET ASSOCIATION AVFT c. FRANCE

  Rn. 108 La Cour réaffirme par ailleurs qu'un recours indemnitaire tel que celui invoqué par le Gouvernement n'est pas de nature à assurer un redressement adéquat pour un tel grief (Pulfer c. Albanie, no 31959/13, § 71, 20 novembre 2018, et R.B. c. Estonie, no 22597/16, § 65, 22 juin 2021).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 6406/21

  M.G. v. LITHUANIA

  Accordingly, an award of compensation cannot be regarded as sufficient for the fulfilment of a Contracting State's obligations under Article 3 of the Convention in cases such as the present one (see, mutatis mutandis, Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 71, 20 November 2018, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 56070/18

  STOYANOVA v. BULGARIA

  After all, the Court in its judgment in Sabalic (cited above, § 111) stressed the need for the domestic authorities to demonstrate the State's Convention commitment to ensuring that homophobic ill-treatment does not remain ignored by the relevant authorities and to providing effective protection against acts of ill-treatment motivated by the applicant's sexual orientation, showing that such acts could in no way be tolerated, rather than fostering a sense of impunity for the acts of violent hate crime (compare also Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 100, 14 December 2010; and also Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 141, 29 July 2010; Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 48-49, 4 November 2010; Zontul v. Greece, no. 12294/07, §§ 106-109, 17 January 2012; and Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 88 in fine, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 15798/20

  VUCKOVIC v. CROATIA

  However, the Court is inclined to agree with the applicant that the said proceedings do not concern the same subject matter as her application to the Court, and that in any event effective deterrence against serious attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that regard (see Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 76, 11 December 2012, and the cases cited therein, and Pulfer v. Albania, no. 31959/13, § 71, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 37882/13

  E.G. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 04.11.2025 - 42199/22

  ZAKAIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 14142/15

  OCHIGAVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53040/19

  ILJAZ v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 15355/15

  MAMULASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 1879/20 (anhängig)

  SKALSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 21608/20 (anhängig)

  SARIBEY v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 624/25 (anhängig)

  CHERKEZI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2024 - 75969/14

  MAISAIA v. GEORGIA