Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=31.05.2011&Aktenzeichen=21789/02
Timestamp: 2019-10-22 15:26:29
Document Index: 772741825

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', '§ 105', '§ 117', '§ 118', '§ 61', '§ 73', '§ 28', '§ 23', '§ 93', '§ 25', '§ 22', '§ 93', '§ 25', '§ 28', '§ 65', '§ 27']

EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2011,56509
EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,56509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31.05.2011 - 21789/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,56509)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 31. Mai 2011 - 21789/02 (https://dejure.org/2011,56509)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56509) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)
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).
Or, la Cour estime que cette question est étroitement liée à la substance du grief tiré de la violation de l'aspect procédural de l'article 3 et la joint donc au fond (voir, mutatis mutandis, Derman c. Turquie, no 21789/02, § 23, 31 mai 2011).
Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 93, ECHR 2010, and Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 25, 31 May 2011).
The Court observes, from the outset, that the only remedies Article 35 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that are available and sufficient and relate to the breaches alleged (see Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 22, 31 May 2011).
Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 93, ECHR 2010; Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 25, 31 May 2011; and Eski v. Turkey, no. 8354/04, § 28, 5 June 2012).
This is essential for maintaining the public's confidence in, and support for, the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of the authorities" tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see OkkalÄ± v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts), and Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 27, 31 May 2011).