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

• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 7888/03
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR 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).

  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, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  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, 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, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 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.
• 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, 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, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  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, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 43124/98

  TÜRKMEN c. TURQUIE

• 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. Dezember 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; Okkali v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 28, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Par ailleurs, en vertu de l'article 19 de la Convention et du principe voulant que le but de celle-ci consiste à garantir des droits non pas théoriques ou illusoires, mais concrets et effectifs, la Cour doit veiller à ce que les Etats s'acquittent correctement de leur obligation de protéger les droits des personnes placées sous leur juridiction (voir Nikolova et Velichkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 61, 20 décembre 2007).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 58559/09

  HEMSWORTH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Les requérants se prévalent au contraire d'une jurisprudence inaugurée par l'arrêt Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie (no 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 décembre 2007 (paragraphe 103 du présent arrêt)), qui paraît indiquer que l'examen d'un grief matériel tiré de l'article 2 (ou 3) doit être lié à l'appréciation par la Cour de toutes les garanties procédurales disponibles, y compris les procédures d'enquête, et non des seules actions civiles exercées ou disponibles.
• 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, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA

  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, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  A. v. CROATIA

  The Court must grant substantial deference to the national courts in the choice of appropriate measures, while also maintaining a certain power of review and the power to intervene in cases of manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the results obtained at domestic level (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 62, 20 December 2007; Atalay v. Turkey, no. 1249/03, § 40, 18 September 2008; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 78, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 11273/05

  CSIKI c. ROUMANIE

  Dans de telles affaires, la Cour a jugé que, en l'absence d'une enquête pénale effective susceptible de mener à l'identification et à la punition des responsables, le simple octroi de dommages et intérêts à la suite d'un constat de violation de l'article 2 de la Convention ne suffisait pas à retirer à la personne concernée la qualité de victime (Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, §§ 55-56, 20 décembre 2007, et Yeter c. Turquie, no 33750/03, § 58, 13 janvier 2009).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 12294/07

  ZONTUL c. GRECE

  Deuxièmement, le requérant doit le cas échéant percevoir une compensation (Vladimir Romanov, précité, § 79 et, mutatis mutandis, Aksoy c. Turquie, 18 décembre 1996, § 98, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-VI et Abdülsamet Yaman c. Turquie, no 32446/96, § 53, 2 novembre 2004 (ces deux arrêts dans le contexte de l'article 13)) ou, du moins, avoir la possibilité de demander et d'obtenir une indemnité pour le préjudice que lui a causé le mauvais traitement (comparer, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 56, 20 décembre 2007, (concernant une violation de l'article 2) ; Çamdereli c. Turquie, précité, § 29 ; Yeter c. Turquie, no 33750/03, § 58, 13 janvier 2009 et Gäfgen, précité, § 116).
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 33349/10

  SIDIROPOULOS ET PAPAKOSTAS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 7823/06

  STIHI-BOOS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 5886/15

  LINGURAR ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  AUSTRIANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 20875/07

  PASHOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2012 - 41356/08

  BUTOLEN v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 37308/05

  UGUR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 64126/13

  SARISÜLÜK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 42078/02

  ALDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 4860/02

  LEPARSKIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 39374/09

  DUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 43626/13

  ECATERINA MIREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 15052/09

  CATALINA FILIP v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 31151/08

  OBIORA v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

  BAMBAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 69180/01

  KARANDJA v. BULGARIA