Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZINETS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 3) MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (Art. 3) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  The Court, in particular, notes that the present case differs from the situation "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is 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 how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11 and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V) since the present applicant has been never detained by the State authorities.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  It has deemed treatment to be "degrading" because it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  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, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  Nonetheless, where 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, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the gender, age and state of health of the victim (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, §§ 100-01, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  The Court, in particular, notes that the present case differs from the situation "[w]here an individual, when taken in police custody, is 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 how those injuries were caused, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention" (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11 and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V) since the present applicant has been never detained by the State authorities.
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  Nonetheless, where 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, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16

  PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE

  (i) Regard being had to the circumstances of the applicant's arrest and his account of the alleged ill-treatment in relation to the nature and timing of the documented injuries, the available material does not conclusively establish that the applicant was taken into custody in good health and sustained injuries when he was under control of the police (for relevant example, see Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 56-57, 6 December 2007, and Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 54, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 08.09.2011 - 33108/05

  OSHURKO c. UKRAINE

  a) les dispositions constitutionnelles, ainsi que celles du code de procédure pénale régissant l'ouverture d'une l'enquête à la suite d'allégations de mauvais traitement, dans l'arrêt Kozinets c. Ukraine (no 75520/01, § 39-42, 6 décembre 2007).

  La Cour considère que le grief tiré de l'article 13 de la Convention doit être intégré au volet procédural de l'article 3 de la Convention (Kozinets c. Ukraine, no 75520/01, § 44, 6 décembre 2007).

• EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 74010/11

  DEMBELE c. SUISSE

  En ce qui concerne la prétendue insuffisance de l'enquête, le requérant invoque également les articles 6 et 13 de la Convention, pris séparément et en combinaison avec l'article 3 mais, eu égard à la formulation des griefs du requérant, la Cour estime qu'il convient d'examiner la question de l'absence d'une enquête effective sur les mauvais traitements allégués uniquement sous l'angle du volet procédural de l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Karaman et autres c. Turquie, no 60272/08, § 37, 31 janvier 2012 ; Kazım GündoÄŸan c. Turquie, no 29/02, § 31, 30 janvier 2007 ; Kozinets c. Ukraine, no 75520/01, § 44, 6 décembre 2007).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 60272/08

  KARAMAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Eu égard à la formulation des griefs des requérants, la Cour estime qu'il convient d'examiner sous le volet procédural de l'article 3 de la Convention le grief tiré de l'absence d'une enquête effective sur les mauvais traitements allégués (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Kazım GündoÄŸan c. Turquie, no 29/02, § 31, 30 janvier 2007 et Kozinets c. Ukraine, no 75520/01, § 44, 6 décembre 2007).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 27454/11

  ORLIK v. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that the repetition of such remittal orders and decisions not to institute proceedings discloses a serious deficiency (see Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, § 61, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 45158/14

  BONAL c. SUISSE

  Eu égard à la formulation des griefs de la requérante, la Cour estime qu'il convient d'examiner la question de l'absence d'une enquête effective sur les mauvais traitements allégués uniquement sous l'angle du volet procédural de l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Dembele c. Suisse, no 74010/11, § 33, 24 septembre 2013 ; Karaman et autres c. Turquie, no 60272/08, § 37, 31 janvier 2012 ; Kazim Gündogan c. Turquie, no 29/02, § 31, 30 janvier 2007 ; Kozinets c. Ukraine, no 75520/01, § 44, 6 décembre 2007).
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  YATSENKO v. UKRAINE

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 13406/06

  OSAKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Where 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, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32, and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, § 53, 6 December 2007).