Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMOYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 64398/01
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  In cases under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, where the effectiveness of the official investigation was at issue, the Court often assessed whether the authorities reacted promptly to the complaints at the relevant time (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII, and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  Consideration was given to the starting of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken during the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 64398/01

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  In many other police ill-treatment cases in which a "pre-investigation inquiry" was the only procedure employed by the investigative authority, the Court's approach was to identify specific deficiencies and omissions on the part of the investigating authority in the course of the "pre-investigation inquiry", which led it to conclude that the State's obligation under Article 3 to carry out an effective investigation had not been fulfilled (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, §§ 34-46, 2 October 2008; Valyayev v. Russia, no. 22150/04, §§ 61-73, 14 February 2012; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 58-60, 30 October 2012; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, §§ 58-63, 11 December 2012; Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, §§ 64-69, 4 April 2013; Davitidze v. Russia, no. 8810/05, §§ 110-118, 30 May 2013; Ryabtsev v. Russia, no. 13642/06, §§ 78-84, 14 November 2013; Aleksandr Novoselov v. Russia, no. 33954/05, §§ 72-78, 28 November 2013; and Velikanov v. Russia, no. 4124/08, §§ 57-66, 30 January 2014).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 21062/07

  IGOSHIN c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Samoïlov c. Russie (no 64398/01, 2 octobre 2008) et Gladychev c. Russie (no 2807/04, 30 juillet 2009), le Gouvernement estime que la somme réclamée par le requérant est excessive.
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 27217/06

  ZINOVCHIK c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Samoïlov c. Russie, no 64398/01, 2 octobre 2008 et Gladychev c. Russie, no 2807/04, 30 juillet 2009, 1e Gouvernement que la somme réclamée par le requérant est excessive.

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 23559/07

  OLEYNIK c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Samoïlov c. Russie, no 64398/01, 2 octobre 2008 et Gladychev c. Russie, no 2807/04, 30 juillet 2009, 1e Gouvernement estime que la somme réclamée par le requérant est excessive.
• EGMR - 586/08 (anhängig)

  YANCHURKIN v. RUSSIA

  - Were the issue of ill-treatment (use of force) and the issue of an effective investigation of the related complaint examined in substance during the applicant's trial and on appeal against the trial judgment? Was the trial court empowered to afford any adequate redress in respect of these two issues? If yes, has the applicant thereby complied with the exhaustion requirement (see Belevitskiy, cited above, §§ 62-67; Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 50-52, 24 July 2008; Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 33, 2 October 2008; Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, §§ 43-44, 2 October 2008; Vladimir Fedorov v. Russia, no. 19223/04, §§ 44-50, 30 July 2009; Toporkov v. Russia, no. 66688/01, §§ 28-35, 1 October 2009; and Lopata v. Russia, no. 72250/01, § 107, 13 July 2010)?.
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 41441/16

  BALANINA v. RUSSIA

  In such a case a mere doubt as to the prospect of success would not be sufficient to exempt an applicant from submitting a complaint to the competent authority (see Samoylov v. Russia, no. 64398/01, § 25, 2 October 2008, with further references).