Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 56842/08

The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, inter alia, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 91, 22 May 2012, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 86, 28 September 2015).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 56842/08

As civil-party proceedings constitute a civil action for reparation of damage caused by an offence and the outcome of the criminal investigation is decisive for the "civil right" in question, the proceedings come within the field of application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 62-66 and 74-75, ECHR 2004-I, Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 45-49, 5 July 2005, and Javor and Javorová v. Slovakia, no. 42360/10, §§ 46-66, 15 September 2015).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 56842/08

The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, inter alia, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 91, 22 May 2012, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 86, 28 September 2015).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 56842/08

As civil-party proceedings constitute a civil action for reparation of damage caused by an offence and the outcome of the criminal investigation is decisive for the "civil right" in question, the proceedings come within the field of application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 62-66 and 74-75, ECHR 2004-I, Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 45-49, 5 July 2005, and Javor and Javorová v. Slovakia, no. 42360/10, §§ 46-66, 15 September 2015).

Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 56842/08

The main facts of these cases concerning the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations between 13 to 15 June 1990 are similar to those presented in Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC] (nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 14-49, 55-72, 78-110, and 137-168, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).