Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AGHDGOMELASHVILI AND JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 37) Striking out applications-general;(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AGHDGOMELASHVILI AND JAPARIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 73235/12

  IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  The relevant domestic law and international material concerning the situation of the LGBT community in Georgia was comprehensively summarised in paragraphs 30-39 of the Court's judgment in the case of Identoba and Others v. Georgia (no. 73235/12, 12 May 2015).

  This is a question to be decided in each case in the light of its facts and the nature of the allegations made (see Identoba and Others, v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 63, 12 May 2015 and B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, §§ 59-63, 24 July 2012).

• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  As regards the applicants" request that the additional measure be indicated to the respondent State, the Court reiterates that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress the effects in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see, for instance, Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 71156/01

  MEMBERS OF THE GLDANI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  Tolerance by the authorities towards such acts cannot but undermine public confidence in the principle of lawfulness and the State's maintenance of the rule of law (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 97, 3 May 2007).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 46454/11

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  Accordingly, in the light of the above-mentioned principles, the Court considers that, in the case at hand, it would be for the respondent State to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the exact means to be used in its domestic legal order to discharge its obligations under the Convention, including those in relation to the conduct of an effective criminal investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, no. 46454/11, §§ 682 and 683, 31 May 2018).
• EGMR, 02.12.2004 - 4672/02

  FARBTUHS c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  In the absence of such explanation, the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the Government (see Bouyid, cited above, § 83; Nachova and Others, cited above, § 147, ECHR 2005 VII; and Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 54, 2 December 2004).
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 47159/08

  B.S. c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  This is a question to be decided in each case in the light of its facts and the nature of the allegations made (see Identoba and Others, v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 63, 12 May 2015 and B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, §§ 59-63, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  The authorities must do whatever is reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of violence induced by, for instance, racial or religious intolerance, or violence motivated by gender-based discrimination (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others, cited above, §§ 139-42; and Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 74839/10, §§ 60-64, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  The Court considers that the State's international responsibility for violence committed by its agents which is motivated by hatred, and its duty to investigate the existence of a possible link between a discriminatory motive and an act of violence, may respectively fall under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 3 of the Convention, but may also be seen to form part of the State's obligations under Article 14 of the Convention to secure the fundamental values enshrined in Article 3 without discrimination (see, for instance, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, §§ 45-55 and 63-75, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts), and Ciorcan and Others v. Romania, nos.
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 74839/10

  MUDRIC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  The authorities must do whatever is reasonable in the circumstances to collect and secure the evidence, explore all practical means of discovering the truth and deliver fully reasoned, impartial and objective decisions, without omitting suspicious facts that may be indicative of violence induced by, for instance, racial or religious intolerance, or violence motivated by gender-based discrimination (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others, cited above, §§ 139-42; and Mudric v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 74839/10, §§ 60-64, 16 July 2013).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 29414/09

  CIORCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2020 - 7224/11

  29414/09 and 44841/09, §§ 139-151 and 156-157, 27 January 2015).

• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 18179/17

  KARTER v. UKRAINE

  Being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018, and compare Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 106, 12 May 2015, and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, §§ 51 and 52, 8 October 2020), the Court finds it appropriate to examine these complaints under Article 3 and Article 14 of the Convention, which read as follows:.
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 17184/18

  A AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  68762/14 and 71200/14, § 114-40, 20 September 2018, concerning Article 3 (conditions of detention); Mammadov and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 35432/07, §§ 102-29, 21 February 2019, concerning Article 3; Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, §§ 30-50, 8 October 2020, concerning Articles 3 and 14; Dzerkorashvili and Others v. Georgia, no. 70572/16, §§ 56-105 and 125-26, 2 March 2023, concerning Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14; and Lapunov v. Russia, no. 28834/19, §§ 77-121, 12 September 2023, concerning Articles 3 and 14).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 71977/12

  NAGIBIN AND RYAZANTSEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court dismisses the applicants' claim for costs and expenses because it has not been substantiated that the applicants paid them or were under a legally enforceable obligation to pay them (compare Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, §§ 89-90, 17 July 2018; Radzevil v. Ukraine, no. 36600/09, §§ 94-96, 10 December 2019; Udaltsov v. Russia, no. 76695/11, § 201, 6 October 2020; and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 61, 8 October 2020).

 
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 71367/12

  OGANEZOVA v. ARMENIA

  A failure to make a distinction in the way situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see Begheluri and Others v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, §§ 173 and 179, 7 October 2014, and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 44, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 73975/16

  A AND B v. GEORGIA

  As regards the applicants' request for additional measures to be indicated to the respondent State, the Court considers that, in the case at hand, it would be for the respondent State to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the exact means to be used in its domestic legal order to discharge its obligations under the Convention, including those in relation to the problem of the discriminatory passivity of the law-enforcement authorities in the face of allegations of violence against women (see Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, no. 46454/11, §§ 682 and 683, 31 May 2018, and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 57, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR - 226/18 (anhängig)

  YEVSTIFEYEV v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications

  Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or interference with their right to respect for their private lives, in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, during the police raid of 5 December 2020? Was the investigation into the applicants' allegations of physical and verbal abuse effective (see Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, 8 October 2020)?.
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court has also held that the investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and - if appropriate - punishment of those responsible (see, for example, Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 37, 8 October 2020).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16

  PERTAIA v. GEORGIA

  Last but not least, the applicant was not allowed to participate in the criminal investigation in any meaningful way, as he was repeatedly refused the victim status despite his numerous requests to that end (see Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 39, 8 October 2020, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 2064/10

  FEDOTOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court dismisses the claim for costs and expenses because it has not been substantiated that she paid them or was under a legally enforceable obligation to pay them (compare Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, §§ 89-90, 17 July 2018; Radzevil v. Ukraine, no. 36600/09, §§ 94-96, 10 December 2019; Udaltsov v. Russia, no. 76695/11, § 201, 6 October 2020; and Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, no. 7224/11, § 61, 8 October 2020).