Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BURES v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Bures gegen Tschechische Republik

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bures v. the Czech Republic

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08
• EGMR, 06.12.2018 - 37679/08

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  On the other hand, the Court notes that on numerous occasions it has found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because of lack of access to court, when a procedural rule was construed in a way that was unpredictable and in variance with the principle of legal certainty (see Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2002-IX), or the domestic court showed excessive formalism (see Bulena v. the Czech Republic, no. 57567/00, § 35, 20 April 2004).

  In these instances, it then dismissed the Government's objection to the admissibility of other complaints (see Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 47273/99, 11 December 2001 and Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 46129/99, 11 December 2001).

• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  Even though the scope of the State's positive obligations might differ between cases where treatment contrary to Article 3 has been inflicted through the involvement of State agents and cases where violence is inflicted by private individuals, the requirements as to an official investigation are similar (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009).

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 100, 17 December 2009).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Where an individual makes a credible assertion that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  The Court has recognised the special vulnerability of mentally ill persons in its case-law and the assessment of whether the treatment or punishment concerned is incompatible with the standards of Article 3 has, in particular, to take into consideration this vulnerability (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, Rohde v. Denmark, no. 69332/01, § 99, 21 July 2005 and Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 120, ECHR 2008 (extracts)).

  The domestic authorities thus failed in their obligation to protect the health of persons deprived of their liberty (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, and Jasinskis v. Latvia, no. 45744/08, § 60, 21 December 2010).

• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 50222/99

  KRASTANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  Wilful ill-treatment of persons who are within the control of agents of the State cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the victim (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 60, 30 September 2004, and Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 130, 29 July 2010).

  In respect of persons deprived of their liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by their own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Krastanov v. Bulgaria, no. 50222/99, § 53, 30 September 2004).

• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 47273/99

  BELES AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  In these instances, it then dismissed the Government's objection to the admissibility of other complaints (see Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 47273/99, 11 December 2001 and Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 46129/99, 11 December 2001).
• EGMR, 20.04.2004 - 57567/00

  BULENA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  On the other hand, the Court notes that on numerous occasions it has found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention because of lack of access to court, when a procedural rule was construed in a way that was unpredictable and in variance with the principle of legal certainty (see Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, §§ 53-54, ECHR 2002-IX), or the domestic court showed excessive formalism (see Bulena v. the Czech Republic, no. 57567/00, § 35, 20 April 2004).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  The State is responsible for the well-being of detainees (Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Moisejevs v. Latvia, no. 64846/01, § 78, 15 June 2006) and cannot evade its responsibility by delegating its power to other entities.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  The Court reiterates that in cases where an individual has an arguable claim under Article 3 of the Convention, the notion of an effective remedy entails, on the part of the State, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 79, ECHR 1999-V, and in the context of a treatment in a psychiatric hospital including application of restraints, Filip v. Romania (dec.), no. 41124/02, 8 December 2005).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2012 - 37679/08

  The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist (see Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 41124/02

  FILIP c. ROUMANIE

• BVerfG, 24.07.2018 - 2 BvR 309/15

  Fixierung in psychiatrischer Unterbringung: Richtervorbehalt erforderlich?

  Die menschliche Würde ist nach der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs beeinträchtigt, wenn die Person, der die Freiheit entzogen ist, körperlicher Gewalt ausgesetzt wird, deren Anwendung nicht durch ihr eigenes Verhalten notwendig geworden ist (vgl. EGMR , Labita v. Italy, Urteil vom 6. April 2000, Nr. 26772/95, § 120; EGMR, Keenan v. The United Kingdom, Urteil vom 3. April 2001, Nr. 27229/95, § 113; EGMR, Bures v. The Czech Republic, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2012, Nr. 37679/08, § 86).

  Für das Anlegen von Fixierungsgurten bei aggressivem Verhalten des Betroffenen sei daher Voraussetzung, dass Gesundheit und Wohlbefinden des Betroffenen regelmäßiger Kontrolle unterlägen und die Fixierung notwendig und auch in ihrer Dauer verhältnismäßig sei (EGMR, Wiktorko v. Poland, Urteil vom 31. März 2009, Nr. 14612/02, § 55; EGMR, Bures v. The Czech Republic, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2012, Nr. 37679/08, § 86).

• BVerfG, 19.01.2023 - 2 BvR 1719/21

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Sicherungsverwahrten gegen die …

  Das Wohlergehen der gefesselten Person ist regelmäßig zu überprüfen (vgl. EGMR, Wiktorko v. Poland, Urteil vom 31. März 2009, Nr. 14612/02, § 55) und der Einsatz der Fesseln ist von der anordnenden Instanz vollständig zu dokumentieren (vgl. EGMR, Bures v. The Czech Republic, Urteil vom 18. Oktober 2012, Nr. 37679/08, § 103).
• LG München I, 27.05.2015 - 15 O 21894/11

  Schmerzensgeld, Gutachten, Beweisaufnahme, Unterbringung, Schmerzensgeldanspruch, …

  Auf die vom Kläger mit Blick auf das Urteil des EGMR vom 18.10.2012, Beschwerde-Nr. 37679/08, aufgeworfene Frage, wer für die Frage der Rechtmäßigkeit der Fixierung die Beweislast trägt, kommt es daher vorliegend nicht an.