Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=21.12.2010&Aktenzeichen=18541/04
Timestamp: 2019-05-24 22:30:27
Document Index: 595632011

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', '§ 76', '§ 42', '§ 90', '§ 50', '§ 56', '§ 180', '§ 45', '§ 41', '§ 55', '§ 45', '§ 57', '§ 41', '§ 56', '§ 180', '§ 45', '§ 117']

EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18541/04 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,63344
EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 18541/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63344)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.12.2010 - 18541/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63344)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Dezember 2010 - 18541/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,63344)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63344) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
It notes that while no conclusive evidence was provided by the parties concerning the exact nature and degree of force resulting in the applicant's injuries, viewed cumulatively, the medical evidence, the nature of the applicant's injuries, his detailed and consistent statements, as well as the lack of plausible and detailed explanation on the part of the Government as to the cause of the injuries, give rise to a strong adverse inference that these injuries were the result of the police officers using excessive and disproportionate force (see, Rehbock, cited above, § 76; Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, §§ 42-43, 21 December 2010; Butolen v. Slovenia, no. 41356/08, § 90, 26 April 2012, and, a contrario, Spinov, cited above, § 50).
In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person's absconding or causing injury or damage (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, § 56, Reports 1997-VIII; Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 180, ECHR 2005-IX; and Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, § 45, 21 December 2010).
Recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the individual's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, § 41, 21 December 2010).
The Court also accepts, as evidenced by the injuries noted in the medical reports (see paragraphs 12, 22 and 27 above), that the shackling and stretching of the applicant must have caused him considerable pain, which is an important factor to take into account in assessing the severity of the treatment (see Archip v. Romania, no. 49608/08, § 55, 27 September 2011; conversely, Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, § 45, 21 December 2010, where the Court did not find a violation of Article 3 in respect of the handcuffing of the applicant because, inter alia, she had not contended that the handcuffing had affected her physically; and Raninen, cited above, §§ 57-59, where the Court did not find a violation, in spite of the fact that the handcuffing had not been justified, because it had not affected the applicant physically or mentally).
Recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the individual's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the rights set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, § 41, 21 December 2010).
Il se réfère sur ce deuxième point aux montants alloués par la Cour à titre de préjudice moral dans ses arrêts concernant des cas de mauvais traitements infligés par des agents de l'État, notamment Dmitrachkov c. Russie (no 18825/02, 16 septembre 2010), Kuzmenko c. Russie (no 18541/04, 21 décembre 2010) et Popandopulo c. Russie (no 4512/09, 10 mai 2011).
EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 19139/12
In this regard, it is important to consider, for instance, the danger of the person's absconding or causing injury or damage (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Raninen v. Finland, cited above, § 56, Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 180, ECHR 2005-IX, Kuzmenko v. Russia, no. 18541/04, § 45, 21 December 2010 and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, § 117, 17 July 2014).