Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DZHULAY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) No violation ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Dzhulay v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  73 The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the cause of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A, and Ribitsch v. Austria, cited above, § 34, p. 26).

  [1] Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A.

• EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14032/88

  POITRIMOL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  [5] Salduz v. Turkey, [GC] no. 36391/02, § 54, 27 November 2008, § 51; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A; and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008.
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  Thus, Article 6 - especially paragraph 3 thereof - may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, 24 November 1993, § 36, Series A no. 275; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 131, ECHR 2005-IV; Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 50, ECHR 2008).

• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  The Court further reiterates that in assessing evidence, it has generally applied the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 95, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  [12] Dayanan v Turkey, no. 7377/03, 13 October 2009.
• EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 68020/01

  DEMEBUKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  [5] Salduz v. Turkey, [GC] no. 36391/02, § 54, 27 November 2008, § 51; Poitrimol v. France, 23 November 1993, § 34, Series A no. 277-A; and Demebukov v. Bulgaria, no. 68020/01, § 50, 28 February 2008.
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  Nonetheless, when allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny - even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  Nonetheless, when allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny - even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the applicant to wait for the completion of the trial to raise the complaints before the Court, and he has accordingly complied with the six-month rule provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 99, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 29100/03

  TIMUR c. TURQUIE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

  sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to firstly examine whether the applicants' complaints of ill-treatment were 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 v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 107, 15 May 2012; 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, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the first applicant's complaint 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; and Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015).
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 53747/09

  MAKARENKO v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications

  (iii) Second decision to close criminal proceedings almost identical to first, quashed by court with reference to shortcomings in inquiry (compare Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 55 and 59, 3 April 2014).

• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 1781/14

  LUTAYENKO v. UKRAINE and 1 other application

  (i) Grounds for second decision to close investigation almost identical to first, quashed by court with reference to shortcomings in inquiry (compare Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 55 and 59, 3 April 2014);.
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 30760/06

  [ENG]

  Moreover, the Court would like to underline that apart from the applicant's failure to substantiate his complaint under the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention it was the authorities' failure to carry out an effective investigation into it that kept the crucial issues of the case unclear (see Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, 3 April 2014).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 30582/04

  [ENG]

  As to the second applicant's complaint concerning his alleged ill-treatment, the Court notes that he did not raise the issue in his appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court (compare with Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 42 and 99, 15 May 2012, and Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, §§ 25 and 62, 3 April 2014).
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05

  SADKOV v. UKRAINE

  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, 21.01.2025 - 44758/20

  PANAYOTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to firstly examine whether the applicants' complaints of ill-treatment were 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 v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 107, 15 May 2012; 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, 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

  24439/06, § 69, 3 Απριλί&omikron;υ 2014, Chinez κατά Ρ&omikron;υµανίας, αριθ.
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 48195/17

  TOROSIAN c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 25.02.2016 - 34006/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.11.2021 - 81315/17

  IVANOV v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76328/16

  ANGHEL v. ROMANIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 13.06.2019 - 76505/14

  BEDNARZ v. POLAND
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 42660/11

  ANDERSEN c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 26.09.2019 - 65970/12

  DZIUNIKOWSKI v. POLAND