|EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02, 39081/02|
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. ... 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 28, Art. 28 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (struck out of the list) Struck out of the list Violation of Art. 38-1-a Preliminary objection dismissed (exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 13+3 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
- EGMR, 15.01.2007 - 17674/02
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02, 39081/02
- EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11
NIZOMKHON DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIAThe Court reiterates that Article 38 commands the respondent State to submit the requested material in its entirety, if the Court so requests, and properly to account for any missing elements (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, §§ 299-300, 26 April, and Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 167 et seq., 1 July 2010).
- EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 38906/07
KARABET AND OTHERS v. UKRAINEAs the Court held in Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, § 69, 28 March 2006) and further reiterated in Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 251, 1 July 2010), the status of such a prosecutor under domestic law, his proximity to prison officials with whom he supervised the relevant prisons on a daily basis, and his integration into that prison system did not offer adequate safeguards such as to ensure an independent and impartial review of prisoners" allegations of ill-treatment on the part of prison officials.
- EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05
SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINEHowever, the Court has held in other contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy, because the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure while a victim's procedural status is not properly formalised (see Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-312, 1 July 2010).