Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRAULAIDIS v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KRAULAIDIS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11, 11167/12, 72092/12, 960/13
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 76805/11

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  In particular, the examination of this case under Article 2 would have been far-fetched, as the factual circumstances of this case, where the applicant sustained a severe injury, although there was no threat to his life, and those of Kotelnikov v. Russia (no. 45104/05, 12 July 2016), which involved an alleged intent to kill the applicant, are different.

  [1] An even more troubling development is to apply the procedural limb of Article 2 for car accidents (even with dolus eventualis) (see Tuchin and Tuchina v. Ukraine (no. 40458/08, 26 May 2016) and even where the person survived the car accident, as in Kotelnikov v. Russia (no. 45104/05, 12 July 2016), where not even the presence of the Makaratzis criteria was considered and bodily injury is treated as death (see Makaratzsis v. Greece (no. 50385/99, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 43045/08

  DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  This was the approach taken by this Section as recently as in Dragomir v. Romania (no. 43045/08, 14 June 2016).

  Such deficiencies had not been found in Dragomir v. Romania (no. 43045/08, 14 June 2016), which accordingly would not have been an authority to be followed in the instant case either.

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  This understanding is in line with the original formulation of ill-treatment found in Selmouni v. France [GC] (no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V), where the psychological impact on the individual in terms of his or her human dignity is central.

  The Court therefore finds elements which are sufficiently serious to render such treatment inhuman and degrading... [R]ecourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by [an individual's] own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3." (Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 99, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  KAPUSTYAK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  It reiterates that the repetition of such decisions may disclose a serious deficiency in the proceedings (see Drozd v. Ukraine, no. 12174/03, § 66, 30 July 2009, and Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, § 78, 3 March 2016), and in the present case there are no important reasons to find otherwise.

  In the present case, the Court relies upon standards which it has developed for assessing investigative shortcomings in alleged police brutality cases (see Drozd v. Ukraine, no. 12174/03, § 66, 30 July 2009, and Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, §§ 61 and 78, 3 March 2016).

• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 12174/03

  DROZD v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  It reiterates that the repetition of such decisions may disclose a serious deficiency in the proceedings (see Drozd v. Ukraine, no. 12174/03, § 66, 30 July 2009, and Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, § 78, 3 March 2016), and in the present case there are no important reasons to find otherwise.

  In the present case, the Court relies upon standards which it has developed for assessing investigative shortcomings in alleged police brutality cases (see Drozd v. Ukraine, no. 12174/03, § 66, 30 July 2009, and Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, §§ 61 and 78, 3 March 2016).

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  [6] Antonov, Cioban and Basyuk involved fatal car accidents (where persons had been killed) and hence were argued under Article 2. See also Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 22737/04, § 51, 12 January 2012) (stating, in the context of alleged Article 2 violations, that a civil remedy alone, if efficient, might be sufficient in cases of car accidents), referring to medical negligence cases Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no.53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Šilih, cited above, § 194).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  [1] An even more troubling development is to apply the procedural limb of Article 2 for car accidents (even with dolus eventualis) (see Tuchin and Tuchina v. Ukraine (no. 40458/08, 26 May 2016) and even where the person survived the car accident, as in Kotelnikov v. Russia (no. 45104/05, 12 July 2016), where not even the presence of the Makaratzis criteria was considered and bodily injury is treated as death (see Makaratzsis v. Greece (no. 50385/99, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  [6] Antonov, Cioban and Basyuk involved fatal car accidents (where persons had been killed) and hence were argued under Article 2. See also Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 22737/04, § 51, 12 January 2012) (stating, in the context of alleged Article 2 violations, that a civil remedy alone, if efficient, might be sufficient in cases of car accidents), referring to medical negligence cases Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no.53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Šilih, cited above, § 194).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  In Antonov v. Ukraine (no. 28096/04, § 45, 3 November 2011), Cioban v. Romania (no. 18295/08, § 25, 11 March 2014) and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151/10, § 57, 5 November 2015), this Court concluded that "where an accident has been caused by pure negligence without aggravating circumstances, the Court may be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a remedy in the civil courts enabling any liability of the parties concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained." (see Cioban, cited above, § 25).[6].
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 51151/10

  BASYUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  In Antonov v. Ukraine (no. 28096/04, § 45, 3 November 2011), Cioban v. Romania (no. 18295/08, § 25, 11 March 2014) and Basyuk v. Ukraine (no. 51151/10, § 57, 5 November 2015), this Court concluded that "where an accident has been caused by pure negligence without aggravating circumstances, the Court may be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a remedy in the civil courts enabling any liability of the parties concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained." (see Cioban, cited above, § 25).[6].
• EGMR, 26.05.2016 - 40458/08

  TUCHIN AND TUCHINA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 18295/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 32662/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen