Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten heute, 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×
×
Doctrine-WebinarLetzte Chance
Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten heute, 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 - 12:00 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,68584
EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,68584)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.12.2006 - 65859/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,68584)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. Dezember 2006 - 65859/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,68584)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,68584) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (76)Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    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).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    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).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    On the basis of all the material placed before it, the Court finds that neither the authorities at the domestic level, nor the Government in the proceedings before the Strasbourg Court have advanced any convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant's injuries (see, by contrast, Klaas v. Germany, judgment of 22 September 1993, Series A no. 269, § 29-31).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

    EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    The Court further recalls that being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious about taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact the Court nevertheless is not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002 and, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 12, § 34 and Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32-33, § 33-34).
  • EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86
    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    The Court further recalls that being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious about taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact the Court nevertheless is not bound by the findings of domestic courts and may depart from them where this is rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, Matyar v. Turkey, no. 23423/94, § 108, 21 February 2002 and, by contrast, Edwards v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 12, § 34 and Vidal v. Belgium, judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235-B, p. 32-33, § 33-34).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 65859/01
    33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-... (extracts), as well as Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 58, ECHR 2006-...).
  • 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).
  • EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

    [ENG]

    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).
  • EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04

    YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO 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).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht