Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 27.02.2019 | EGMR, 13.03.2007

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,52533
EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,52533)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.12.2007 - 7888/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,52533)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Dezember 2007 - 7888/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,52533)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,52533) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection (victim) joined to merits and dismissed Violation of the substantive aspect of Art. 2 Violation of the procedural aspect of Art. 2 No separate issue under Art. 3 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs ...

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (49)Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    (d) The effective investigation required under Article 2 serves to maintain public confidence in the authorities' maintenance of the rule of law, to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts, to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III; and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 72, ECHR 2002-II).

    The Court will first assess the promptness of these proceedings, viewed as a gauge of the authorities' determination to prosecute those responsible for Mr Nikolov's death (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 1999-V, and McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 114 and 152-55, ECHR 2001-III).

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    The Court will first assess the promptness of these proceedings, viewed as a gauge of the authorities' determination to prosecute those responsible for Mr Nikolov's death (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 78 and 79, ECHR 1999-V, and McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 114 and 152-55, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    Under the Court's settled case-law, there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in appropriate cases, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, among many other authorities, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV; and Salman, cited above, § 137).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

    OKKALI c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    This is essential for maintaining public confidence and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

    TANLI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    It is not the Court's task to verify whether their judgments correctly applied domestic criminal law; what is in issue in the present proceedings is not the individual criminal-law liability of the officers, but the international-law responsibility of the State (see Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 32446/96

    ABDULSAMET YAMAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    What is more, until 1999, well after the beginning of the criminal proceedings against them, both officers were still serving in the police, and one of them had even been promoted (he stopped being on the force only because he later chose to resign) (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above), whereas the Court's case-law says that where State agents have been charged with crimes involving ill-treatment, it is important that they be suspended from duty while being investigated or tried and be dismissed if convicted (see Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004; and Türkmen, cited above, § 53).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 43124/98

    TÜRKMEN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    This is essential for maintaining public confidence and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); and Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006).
  • EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

    Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    (b) Article 2 imposes a duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person, backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions (see Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3159, § 115; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 67 and 89, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    (d) The effective investigation required under Article 2 serves to maintain public confidence in the authorities' maintenance of the rule of law, to prevent any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts, to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and the right not to be subjected to ill-treatment and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see, among many other authorities, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III; and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 72, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

    ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
    The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 109, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

    MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

    CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

    Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

    Die Strafe für einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 3 müsse der Schwere der Straftat entsprechen und die Einhaltung der Verpflichtung des Staates zur Bestrafung der Verantwortlichen müsse ernsthaft und nicht als reine Formalität umgesetzt werden (zum Vergleich wurde zitiert: Nikolova und Velichkova ./. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 7888/03, Rdnr. 63, 20.
  • EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

    Opuz ./. Türkei

    Moreover, under Article 19 of the Convention and under the principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective rights, the Court has to ensure that a State's obligation to protect the rights of those under its jurisdiction is adequately discharged (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

    Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

    The Court reiterates that matters of appropriate sentencing fall in principle outside the scope of the Convention, it not being its role to decide, for example, what is the appropriate term of detention applicable to a particular offence (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 105, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 117, 16 December 1999; and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 118, ECHR 1999-IX, and, by contrast, as regards a manifestly disproportionate punishment for ill-treatment, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 28, 31 May 2011).

    See Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007.

  • EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

    [ENG]

    As to the exception invoked by the Government about their pending civil action, they relied on the line of jurisprudence represented by Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria (no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 56, ECHR 2009...; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, §§ 31-48, 27 May 2010; Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 121, 29 July 2010; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

    Save in relation to the complaint about investigative delay, the Court is not in a position to consider the merits of the complaints under the substantive and procedural aspects of Article 2 because the applicants" civil action is pending (for example, Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Hay v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 41894/98; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 19-23, ECHR 2001-III; and Bailey v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 39953/07, 19 January 2010) and because the initiation of further relevant investigative procedures, including of a criminal and/or disciplinary nature, remains possible (for example, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 119, ECHR 2010...; and Darraj v. France, no. 34588/07, §§ 22-53, 4 November 2010).

    The applicants, on the other hand, relied on a line of authority originating in Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 December 2007 (see § 50 of the Chamber's judgment), which suggests that the examination of a substantive complaint under Article 2 (or 3) should be tied to the Court's assessment of all the procedural protections available, including investigative processes and not being limited to any civil action brought or available.

  • EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

    [ENG]

    Those proceedings cannot therefore be regarded as serving the objects of the State's procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention - as far as possible, to establish the facts, lead to the identification of all persons responsible for the alleged ill-treatment, and unmask their motives, if any, with a view to, inter alia, ensuring public confidence in the authorities" maintenance of the rule of law, preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts, and ensuring the accountability of State agents for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 57 (d), 20 December 2007).

    With reference to the present case, the Court observes that persons ill-treated by police officers in Bulgaria or their relatives have indeed been able to obtain compensation by way of claims under section 1 of the 1988 Act (see, for instance, Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, §§ 25, 37 and 45-46, 30 September 2004) or under section 49 of the Contracts and Obligations Act 1951 (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 30-35 and 44, 20 December 2007).

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

    [ENG]

    The Court considers that that obligation would be rendered illusory if, in respect of complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, an applicant's victim status were to be remedied by merely awarding damages (see, mutatis mutandis, Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, § 74, Reports 1998-VI, and Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 55, 20 December 2007 and the cases cited therein).
  • EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

    VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

    It is apparent from the above that the judicial award of compensation to the applicant represents only one part of the group of measures necessary to provide redress for ill-treatment by State agents (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 56, 20 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

    [FRE]

    Otherwise, the States" duty to carry out an effective investigation would lose much of its meaning, and the rights enshrined in the above-mentioned provisions would be ineffective in practice (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73-76, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 3564/11

    EREMIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    At the same time, under Article 19 of the Convention and in accordance with the principle that the Convention is intended to guarantee not theoretical or illusory, but practical and effective rights, the Court has to ensure that a State's obligation to protect the rights of those under its jurisdiction is adequately discharged (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

    DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    This is essential for maintaining public confidence and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006; Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 57 (e), 20 December 2007; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 53 (d), 24 March 2009; and Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 242, 26 April 2011).
  • EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

    NARIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 26608/11

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

    MYUMYUN c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 19223/04

    VLADIMIR FEDOROV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 45744/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 66953/09

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 26.04.2012 - 41356/08

    BUTOLEN v. SLOVENIA

  • EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 11273/05

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 61382/09

    B. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 10036/03

    BEKTAS AND ÖZALP v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 43626/13

    ECATERINA MIREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 12294/07

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 7823/06

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 69180/01

    KARANDJA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 61170/09

    TOPTANIS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 8656/10

    KASAP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 64200/13

    KORKMAZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 75588/01

    ALKIN v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

    MOJSIEJEW v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 64126/13

    SARISÜLÜK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 6414/02

    KOSEVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 63106/00

    VASIL SASHOV PETROV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 63101/00

    FLOAREA POP c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 5886/15

    LINGURAR ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  • EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 12986/13

    TRIVKANOVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 4860/02

    LEPARSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 39374/09

    DUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  • EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 15052/09

    FILIP v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 26984/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 31151/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 42078/02

    ALDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

    BAMBAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 26330/12

    BLONSKA v. POLAND

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.02.2019 - 34805/02, 51284/09, 69138/01, 18059/05, 31365/02, 61275/00, 53121/99, 55061/00, 50222/99, 7888/03, 46317/99, 57883/00, 47905/99, 14383/03, 42027/98, 48130/99, 43531/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,4049
EGMR, 27.02.2019 - 34805/02, 51284/09, 69138/01, 18059/05, 31365/02, 61275/00, 53121/99, 55061/00, 50222/99, 7888/03, 46317/99, 57883/00, 47905/99, 14383/03, 42027/98, 48130/99, 43531/08 (https://dejure.org/2019,4049)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.02.2019 - 34805/02, 51284/09, 69138/01, 18059/05, 31365/02, 61275/00, 53121/99, 55061/00, 50222/99, 7888/03, 46317/99, 57883/00, 47905/99, 14383/03, 42027/98, 48130/99, 43531/08 (https://dejure.org/2019,4049)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Februar 2019 - 34805/02, 51284/09, 69138/01, 18059/05, 31365/02, 61275/00, 53121/99, 55061/00, 50222/99, 7888/03, 46317/99, 57883/00, 47905/99, 14383/03, 42027/98, 48130/99, 43531/08 (https://dejure.org/2019,4049)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,4049) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ANGEL VASKOV ANGELOV CONTRE LA BULGARIE ET 16 AUTRES AFFAIRES

    Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ANGEL VASKOV ANGELOV AGAINST BULGARIA AND 16 OTHER CASES

    Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

  • EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 34805/02
  • EGMR, 27.02.2019 - 34805/02, 51284/09, 69138/01, 18059/05, 31365/02, 61275/00, 53121/99, 55061/00, 50222/99, 7888/03, 46317/99, 57883/00, 47905/99, 14383/03, 42027/98, 48130/99, 43531/08
 
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 ... (24)Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10

    SABA c. ITALIE

    Parmi les autres facteurs à considérer figurent le but dans lequel le traitement a été infligé ainsi que l'intention ou la motivation qui l'ont inspiré (Aksoy c. Turquie, 18 décembre 1996, § 64, Recueil 1996-VI ; Egmez c. Chypre, no 30873/96, § 78, CEDH 2000-XII ; et Krastanov c. Bulgarie, no 50222/99, § 53, 30 septembre 2004), ou encore son contexte, telle une atmosphère de vive tension et à forte charge émotionnelle (Selmouni c. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 104, CEDH 1999-V, et Egmez, précité, § 78).

    D'abord, d'importants facteurs pour que l'enquête soit effective, et qui permettent de vérifier si les autorités avaient la volonté d'identifier et de poursuivre les responsables, sont la célérité avec laquelle elle est ouverte (Selmouni, précité, §§ 78-79 ; Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 59, 20 décembre 2007 ; et Vladimir Romanov, précité §§ 85 et suiv.) et la célérité avec laquelle elle est conduite (Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, § 109, 26 janvier 2006, et Dedovski et autres c. Russie, no 7178/03, § 89, CEDH 2008).

  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 44883/09

    [FRE]

    Parmi les autres facteurs à considérer figurent le but dans lequel le traitement a été infligé ainsi que l'intention ou la motivation qui l'ont inspiré (voir, entre autres, Aksoy c. Turquie, 18 décembre 1996, § 64, Recueil 1996-VI, Egmez c. Chypre, no 30873/96, § 78, CEDH 2000-XII, et Krastanov c. Bulgarie, no 50222/99, § 53, 30 septembre 2004 ; El Masri, précité, § 196 et Al Nashiri, précité, § 508).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 31365/02

    GEORGI DIMITROV c. BULGARIE

    De même, dans le domaine des opérations programmées de la police, les autorités ont l'obligation de prendre des mesures appropriées de nature à minimiser les dommages pour toutes les personnes concernées (voir, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock c. Slovénie, no 29462/95, § 72, CEDH 2000-XII, ainsi que Rashid c. Bulgarie, no 47905/99, § 51, 18 janvier 2007).

    Les autorités avaient donc l'obligation de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour procéder à cette arrestation de façon à minimiser les dommages pour toutes les personnes concernées (Kurnaz et autres c. Turquie, no 36672/97, § 55, 24 juillet 2007, et Rashid c. Bulgarie, no 47905/99, § 51, 18 janvier 2007), ce qu'elles n'ont apparemment pas fait.

  • EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 49382/06

    [ENG]

    The Court reiterates its case-law according to which a State is directly responsible for acts of violence committed by police officers in the performance of their duties (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02

    CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour rappelle que, pour examiner le délai d'exécution d'un jugement de mise en liberté, elle n'a pas écarté des périodes telles que le soir et la nuit dans d'autres affaires où les conditions requises pour la mise en liberté du requérant avaient été réunies à une heure où l'employé de la prison chargé de certaines opérations nécessaires à cette fin était absent en raison de ses horaires de travail (voir Labita, précité, §§ 24 et 172, et Rashid c. Bulgarie, no 47905/99, §§ 31-32 et 79-80, 18 janvier 2007).
  • EGMR, 03.12.2024 - 5576/19

    CEYHAN c. TURQUIE

    Dans pareilles situations, la Cour a déjà déclaré qu'il ne pouvait être remédié à une atteinte au droit à la vie par le seul octroi de dommages-intérêts (Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, §§ 56-57, 20 décembre 2007, Leonidis c. Grèce, no 43326/05, §§ 46-48, 8 janvier 2009, Amaç et Okkan c. Turquie, nos 54179/00 et 54176/00, §§ 32 et 35, 20 novembre 2007, Alkın, précité, §§ 30 et 31, et Oruk, précité, §§ 65 et 66).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 24708/03

    [FRE]

    La Cour rappelle que, lorsqu'elle a examiné le délai d'exécution des décisions de remise en liberté de requérants dans des affaires où les conditions requises pour leur libération avaient été réunies à une heure où l'employé de la prison chargé des opérations nécessaires à cette fin était absent en raison de ses horaires de travail, elle n'a pas écarté des périodes telles que le soir et la nuit (Labita, précité, §§ 24 et 172, Rashid c. Bulgarie, no 47905/99, §§ 31-32 et 79-80, 18 janvier 2007, et Calmanovici, précité, § 77).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

    [ENG]

    The applicant's complaint in this regard is therefore "arguable", which means that the authorities had an obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which the applicant sustained his injuries (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria , no. 50222/99, § 58, 30 September 2004).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 21449/04

    CELNIKU c. GRECE

    La Cour considère que cette omission de la part des agents de l'Etat n'est pas négligeable, car elle a empêché l'enquête administrative de déterminer des éléments importants, tels que la position de la victime lorsque le coup de feu fatal a été déclenché (voir, en ce sens, Ognyanova et Choban c. Bulgarie, no 46317/99, § 111, 23 février 2006).
  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 76035/11

    AKÇAYÖZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    À cet égard, elle rappelle ce qui est de jurisprudence constante: dans les affaires où il est allégué que la mort a été infligée volontairement, l'octroi d'une indemnité ne saurait dispenser les États contractants de leur obligation de mener des investigations pouvant conduire à l'identification et à la punition des responsables (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Tanrıkulu c. Turquie [GC], no 23763/94, § 79, CEDH 1999-IV, Salman c. Turquie [GC], no 21986/93, § 83, CEDH 2000-VII, Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 55, 20 décembre 2007, ainsi que les références qui y figurent, et Al-Skeini et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 55721/07, § 165, CEDH 2011).
  • EGMR, 05.05.2015 - 1454/09

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 77832/12

    TOKUR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 15.10.2019 - 74941/12

    ISIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 37474/20

    CANI v. ALBANIA

  • EGMR, 05.11.2009 - 29612/09

    MARTYNETS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 23307/10

    TURSUN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 26765/05

    OPREA v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 3832/06

    [FRE]

  • EGMR, 15.03.2022 - 73346/11

    ÖZÇELIK c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 70932/10

    ALKAYA v. TURKEY and 7 other applications

  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 40528/11

    GÖRMÜS c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 57883/00

    VASIL PETROV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR - 20004/18 (anhängig)

    ALOSA ET AUTRES c. ITALIE ET ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 59142/16

    LAZARIDOU c. GRÈCE

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,63460
EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,63460)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.03.2007 - 7888/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,63460)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. März 2007 - 7888/03 (https://dejure.org/2007,63460)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,63460) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Zitiert selbst (5)

  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03
    The remedies which are to be taken into account are those which are capable of effectively and sufficiently redressing the wrongs which are the subject of the international claim (see, among others, De Becker v. Belgium, no. 214/56, Commission decision of 9 June 1958, Yearbook 2, p. 214 at p. 242; Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, Decisions and Reports (DR) 65, p. 173, at p. 177; and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 14881/04

    FERNIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03
    Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants deliberately tried to defer the strict time-limit set in Article 35 § 1 by making use of procedures which could offer them no effective redress (see, mutatis mutandis, Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14881/04, 5 January 2006).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

    CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03
    The Government, referring to the case of Caraher v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I), submitted that applicants who had received compensation for the breach of their Convention rights could no longer claim to be victims of a violation.
  • EKMR, 11.03.1985 - 9599/81

    SCOTTS' OF GREENOCK (Estd. 1711) Ltd, LITHGOWS Ltd (formerly LITHGOWS HOLDINGS …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03
    Article 35 § 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require applicants to refer their complaints to the Court before their position in relation to the matter of which they complain has been finally determined at the domestic level (see, among many other authorities, Scotts' of Greenock Ltd., Lithgows Ltd. v. the United Kingdom, no. 9599/81, Commission decision of 11 March 1985, DR 42, p. 33, at p. 41; Finucane v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 29178/95, 2 July 2002; and Jasar v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 69908/01, 11 April 2006).
  • EKMR, 10.07.1991 - 17128/90

    ERDAGÖZ contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03
    However, the applicants did avail themselves of it, with the result that an important aspect of the case which they submitted for consideration to this Court - the availability of effective compensation for Mr Nikolov's death - was not settled until 29 March 2005, when the Shumen Regional Court determined, in a final judgment, their claim for such compensation (see, mutatis mutandis, Erdagöz v. Turkey, no. 17128/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991, DR 71, p. 275, at pp. 281-82).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht