KLAAS v. GERMANY - 15473/89 [1993] ECHR 45 (22 September 1993)

KLAAS v. GERMANY - 15473/89 [1993] ECHR 45 (22 September 1993)

The majority found no violation of Article 3, holding that the evidence did not establish that the force used was disproportionate or amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. The majority also found no separate issue under Article 8, as the facts were essentially the same as those considered under Article 3. Dissenting judges argued that the burden of proof was not properly discharged by the State and that both Articles 3 and 8 were violated in respect of the first applicant, and Article 8 in respect of the second applicant.

Citation
[1993] ECHR 45
Parties
First Applicant: Hildegard Klaas; Second Applicant: Monika Klaas; Respondent Government: Federal Republic of Germany
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
22 September 1993
Procedural Posture
European Court of Human Rights Application / Judgment With Dissenting Opinions
Outcome
Majority: No violation of Article 3 or Article 8; Dissent: Violation of Article 3 and Article 8 in respect of the first applicant, and Article 8 in respect of the second applicant.
Legal Topics
Police Conduct, Use of Force, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Right to Private Life, Burden of Proof
Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Police Conduct Use of Force Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Right to Private Life Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hildegard Klaas

First Applicant

Monika Klaas

Second Applicant

Federal Republic of Germany

Respondent Government

Procedural Posture

European Court of Human Rights Application / Judgment With Dissenting Opinions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injuries sustained by the first applicant during arrest constituted inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether there was a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) in respect of the applicants
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof was properly allocated regarding injuries sustained in police custody

Ratio Decidendi

The majority found no violation of Article 3, holding that the evidence did not establish that the force used was disproportionate or amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment. The majority also found no separate issue under Article 8, as the facts were essentially the same as those considered under Article 3. Dissenting judges argued that the burden of proof was not properly discharged by the State and that both Articles 3 and 8 were violated in respect of the first applicant, and Article 8 in respect of the second applicant.

Court Disposition

Majority: No violation of Article 3 or Article 8; Dissent: Violation of Article 3 and Article 8 in respect of the first applicant, and Article 8 in respect of the second applicant.