Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BORBALA KISS v. HUNGARY

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 59214/11

  Moreover, as regards the applicant's complaint about the adequacy of the investigation, originally raised under Article 13 of the Convention, the Court observes that this matter constitutes an issue falling under the procedural limb of Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 26/09

  Kostentragungspflicht des Dienstgebers für die Hinzuziehung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 59214/11

  26/09/2012.
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 59214/11

  41138/98 and 64320/01, § 139, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts)) This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 44686/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 59214/11

  It follows that the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Gubacsi v. Hungary, no. 44686/07, §§ 30 to 33, 28 June 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 11327/14

  HAÁSZ v. HUNGARY

  The applicants submitted that in the case of Borbála Kiss v. Hungary (no. 59214/11, 26 June 2012), the Government had argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not availing herself of an ordinary remedy - substitute private prosecution under section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure, seeking the pursuit of discontinued criminal proceedings, but that objection had been dismissed by the Court.

  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, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  The Government further submitted that the Court's findings in Borbála Kiss v. Hungary (no. 59214/11, §§ 25-26, 26 June 2012) and Gubacsi v. Hungary (no. 44686/07, §§ 31-32, 28 June 2011) were not applicable in the present case, since in those cases the reason for dismissing the Government's preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was the apparent legal uncertainty concerning the substitute private prosecution proceedings.
• EGMR, 15.09.2026 - 46201/21

  LIMP v. HUNGARY

  The questioning of the two police officers and a confrontation between them and the applicant could have contributed to the clarification of the events (see Kmetty, cited above, §§ 41-42, and Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, § 37, 26 June 2012).

• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 15529/12

  BALÁZS v. HUNGARY

  The applicant submitted that in the case of Borbála Kiss v. Hungary (no. 59214/11, 26 June 2012), the Government had argued that Ms Kiss had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not availing herself of an ordinary remedy, namely substitute private prosecution under section 199 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure, seeking the pursuit of discontinued criminal proceedings, but that objection had been dismissed by the Court.
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 65290/14

  SZ?°CS v. HUNGARY

  As regards the Government's objection concerning the applicant's failure to initiate substitute private prosecution proceedings following the termination of the investigation, the Court firstly notes that in a number of cases against Hungary it has rejected the Government's argument that applicants should have recourse to substitute private prosecution proceedings (see, among others, R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 60-65, 12 April 2016, and Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, §§ 25-27, 26 June 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  v.D. v. CROATIA (NO. 2)

  In cases involving allegations of ill-treatment by State agents, the Court has held that the injured parties, after bringing their complaints to the attention of the relevant prosecuting authority, are not required to pursue the prosecution of the State agents on their own by lodging a bill of indictment, this being the responsibility of the public prosecutor who is certainly better, if not exclusively, equipped in that respect (see Stojnšek v. Slovenia, no. 1926/03, § 79, 23 June 2009, and V.D. v. Croatia, cited above, § 53; see also Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, § 26, 26 June 2012, and Haász and Szabó v. Hungary, nos. 11327/14 and 11613/14, §§ 30-32, 13 October 2015).
• EGMR, 26.05.2026 - 40805/21

  SCHÖNBERGER v. HUNGARY

  A hearing of the police officers in person and their eventual confrontation with the applicant could have contributed to the clarification of the events (see Kmetty, cited above, §§ 41-42, and Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, § 37, 26 June 2012), because there existed several unresolved contradictions between the testimonies of the applicant and those of police officer J.Sz. and the other police officers as to the circumstances of the applicant's apprehension.
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 45855/12

  M.F. v. HUNGARY

  The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant was not required in addition to pursue the matter by way of an appeal in the course of a substitute private prosecution concerning the same event, which would have had the same objective as his criminal complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, § 26, 26 June 2012, and Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 95, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 48444/18

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already held in a number of cases that applicants were not required, as a matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies, to pursue a substitute private prosecution, essentially because to do so would represent the pursuit of a legal avenue which would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019; M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017; R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 60-65, 12 April 2016; Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, §§ 25-27, 26 June 2012; see also Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 95, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 43441/15

  NAGY v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already held in a number of cases that applicants were not required, as a matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies, to pursue a substitute private prosecution, essentially because to do so would represent the pursuit of a legal avenue which would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019; M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017; R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 60-65, 12 April 2016; Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, no. 59214/11, §§ 25-27, 26 June 2012; see also Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 95, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR - 6809/18 (anhängig)

  ZHUKOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR - 11134/08 (anhängig)

  MAZURINA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14

  L.F. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 75260/17

  CSÚCS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 29609/16

  TARJÁNI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 12.03.2013 - 52924/09

  IOAN POP ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 13524/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 40246/19

  LÓZAY v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 40885/16

  PÓSA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 1388/13

  Z.E. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR - 5361/24 (anhängig)

  T.Y. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 3625/15

  TERGE v. HUNGARY
• EGMR - 47782/22 (anhängig)

  KALCHOVSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA