Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUSHKA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 29175/04

  The Court finds that such practice is contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 82, ECHR 2006-IX, and Gäfgen v. Germany, cited above, § 131) and, especially given the applicant's vulnerable age, qualifies as inhuman and degrading treatment.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 29175/04

  Viewing facts of the present case in light of the general principles determined in its case-law (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336 and Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 106, 12 March 2009), the Court notes that according to expert findings of 23 November 2002 and 27 January 2005, which the parties did not challenge, the applicant sustained bruises, abrasions and other injuries on various parts of his body, which could have been inflicted on 18 November 2002 (the day of his placement in custody) by multiple impacts with blunt objects (see paragraphs 18 and 31 above).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 29175/04

  Viewing facts of the present case in light of the general principles determined in its case-law (see, for example, Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336 and Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, § 106, 12 March 2009), the Court notes that according to expert findings of 23 November 2002 and 27 January 2005, which the parties did not challenge, the applicant sustained bruises, abrasions and other injuries on various parts of his body, which could have been inflicted on 18 November 2002 (the day of his placement in custody) by multiple impacts with blunt objects (see paragraphs 18 and 31 above).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  (i) The State provided no plausible satisfactory and convincing explanation as to the origin of the applicant's documented injuries and did not disprove his account of alleged ill-treatment (for relevant examples, see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 61-62, 24 June 2010; and Dushka v. Ukraine, no. 29175/04, § 48, 3 February 2011).