Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ARTUR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05

  WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  However, the amount of compensation was disproportionate to the suffering he had endured, and had been determined without regard to the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in similar cases under Article 41 of the Convention (see Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, §§ 49-50, 10 April 2008, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202-16 and 213, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 68919/10

  PETER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 198-99, ECHR 2001 VII; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 197, ECHR 2012; and Peter v. Germany, no. 68919/10, §§ 55-57, 4 September 2014).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  The Court reiterates that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 218, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 108, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  He stated that his claim had been calculated based on the sum awarded by the Court in the case of Ribitsch, in which a violation of Article 3 of the Convention had been found on account of inhuman and degrading treatment in police custody (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  The question of whether the applicant received compensation for the damage caused by the treatment contrary to Article 3 - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 143, 29 July 2010).

• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16

  NIKITIN AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the above-mentioned situation cannot be regarded as a breach of the applicant's right to an effective remedy (see Artur Ivanov v. Russia, no. 62798/09, § 40, 5 June 2018, and, mutatis mutantis, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, §§ 50-51, 4 July 2006).

  I agree with the majority that "the fact that the applicants" claims were granted only partially is not in itself sufficient to render the remedy ineffective" (see paragraphs 216-17 of the judgment, referring to Artur Ivanov v. Russia, no. 62798/09, § 40, 5 June 2018 and, mutatis mutandis, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, § 51, 4 July 2006).

• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  However, the total award of the equivalent of approximately EUR 1, 260, in view of the principles set out in the case of Shestopalov (cited above, §§ 58-63) and more recently in Artur Ivanov v. Russia (no. 62798/09, § 19, 5 June 2018), appears to be substantially less than the award the Court itself would have made given a finding of a violation of the magnitude claimed (see, for example, Antropov v. Russia, no. 22107/03, 29 January 2009, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202-16, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

  GJINI v. SERBIA

  However, the award in the amount of RSD 250, 000 (approximately EUR 2, 350, see paragraphs 38 and 39 above), in view of the principles set out in the case of Shestopalov (cited above, §§ 58-63, and more recently in Artur Ivanov v. Russia, no. 62798/09, § 19, 5 June 2018), appears to be substantially less than the award the Court itself would have made consequent on a finding of a violation of the magnitude claimed (see, for example, Antropov v. Russia, no. 22107/03, 29 January 2009, and also Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202-216, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA

  Furthermore, the award in the amount of EUR 1, 000, in view of the principles set out in the case of Shestopalov (cited above, §§ 58-63), and more recently in Artur Ivanov v. Russia (no. 62798/09, § 19, 5 June 2018), appears to be substantially less than the award the Court itself would have made, given a finding of a violation of the magnitude claimed (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 202-216, ECHR 2006-V).