Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SADKOV v. UKRAINE
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5+5-4 - Right to ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 50541/08
Aufschub des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
In other words, the Court must examine the impact of the restriction on the overall fairness of the proceedings and decide whether the proceedings as a whole were fair (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, § 257, 13 September 2016).Prompt access to a lawyer constitutes an important counterweight to the vulnerability of suspects in police custody, provides a fundamental safeguard against coercion and ill-treatment of suspects by the police, and contributes to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused (see Salduz, cited above, §§ 53-54, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09, § 255, ECHR 2016).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).Placing the evidentiary burden upon the Government is justified by various considerations and primarily because persons in custody are in a vulnerable position, as this Court has repeatedly acknowledged, and the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see, among other authorities, Salman v Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000).
- EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10
YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, § 77, 3 December 2015).The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in similar situations (see, for recent authorities, Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, §§ 122-28, 3 December 2015, and Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine, no. 7193/04, §§ 94-96, 17 March 2016, with further references).
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
Turning to the substantive aspect of the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment by the police, the Court notes that in assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" must be applied (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)). - EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03
IDALOV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
For a waiver to be effective it must be shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen the consequences of his conduct (see, mutatis mutandis, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 173, 22 May 2012). - EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08
BAKLANOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment between 11 and 12 June 2004 was adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin, cited above, § 107; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. - EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06
DZHULAY v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment between 11 and 12 June 2004 was adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin, cited above, § 107; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. - EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 2040/12
CHINEZ v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05
Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment between 11 and 12 June 2004 was adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin, cited above, § 107; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
- EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 60865/16
MOLOKOV v. UKRAINE
This being so, the Court considers that the applicant was subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (compare Sadkov v. Ukraine, no. 21987/05, § 101, 6 July 2017). - EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 48195/17
TOROSIAN c. GRÈCE
Par conséquent, elle se penchera tout d'abord sur le grief du requérant relatif à la non-réalisation d'une enquête effective au sujet de ses allégations de mauvais traitements (El-Masri c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 39630/09, §§ 155 et 181, CEDH 2012, Dzhulay c. Ukraine, no 24439/06, § 69, 3 avril 2014, Chinez c. Roumanie, no 2040/12, § 57, 17 mars 2015, Yaroshovets et autres c. Ukraine, nos 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, et 332/11, § 77, 3 décembre 2015, et Sadkov c. Ukraine, no 21987/05, § 90, 6 juillet 2017). - EGMR, 07.02.2019 - 20444/14
PATSAKI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
Par conséquent, elle se penchera tout d'abord sur le grief de la requérante relatif à la non-réalisation d'une enquête effective à la suite du décès de D.V. dans la prison (McKerr c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28883/95, 4 avril 2000, Dzhulay c. Ukraine, no 24439/06, § 69, 3 avril 2014, Chinez c. Roumanie, no 2040/12, § 57, 17 mars 2015, Yaroshovets et autres c. Ukraine, no 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, et 332/11, § 77, 3 décembre 2015, et Sadkov c. Ukraine, no 21987/05, § 90, 6 juillet 2017).
- EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 49582/14
CHATZISTAVROU c. GRÈCE
Par conséquent, elle se penchera tout d'abord sur le grief de la requérante relatif à la non-réalisation d'une enquête effective au sujet de ses allégations de mauvais traitements (McKerr c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28883/95, 4 avril 2000, Dzhulay c. Ukraine, no 24439/06, § 69, 3 avril 2014, Chinez c. Roumanie, no 2040/12, § 57, 17 mars 2015, Yaroshovets et autres c. Ukraine, no 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, et 332/11, § 77, 3 décembre 2015, et Sadkov c. Ukraine, no 21987/05, § 90, 6 juillet 2017). - EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 38759/14
L.G. c. BELGIQUE
Par conséquent, elle se penchera tout d'abord sur le grief de la requérante relatif à la non-réalisation d'une enquête effective au sujet de ses allégations de mauvais traitements (McKerr c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 28883/95, 4 avril 2000, Chinez c. Roumanie, no 2040/12, § 57, 17 mars 2015, Sadkov c. Ukraine, no 21987/05, § 90, 6 juillet 2017, et Chatzistavrou c. Grèce, no 49582/14, § 45, 1er mars 2018). - EGMR - 23906/15 (anhängig)
ODARENKO v. UKRAINE
Have the domestic authorities conducted an effective official investigation into the applicant's alleged ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see, for both questions, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015; Teslenko v. Ukraine, no. 55528/08, §§ 87-90 and 106-18, 20 December 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 173-80, 15 May 2012; and Sadkov v. Ukraine, no. 21987/05, §§ 91-101, 6 July 2017)?.