Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  V.K. v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  V.K. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  The question of whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a further factor to be taken into account, but the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  The assessment of this minimum 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 sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19986/06

  ILBEYI KEMALOGLU AND MERIYE KEMALOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  The applicant also submitted that the State had not complied with its positive obligation to protect his health and well-being (he referred to Grzelak v. Poland, no. 7710/02, 15 June 2010, and Ilbeyi Kemaloglu and Meriye Kemaloglu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 38033/02

  Menschenrechte - Überlange Verfahrensdauer: Entscheidung über einen Widerspruch …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  In their further observations they referred to the cases of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C); Stork v. Germany (no. 38033/02, § 103, 13 July 2006); Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)); and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (no. 40998/98, § 79, ECHR 2007-V) and argued that the Russian State did not bear responsibility for the actions of teachers of nursery schools.
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  In their further observations they referred to the cases of Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C); Stork v. Germany (no. 38033/02, § 103, 13 July 2006); Radio France and Others v. France ((dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)); and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines v. Turkey (no. 40998/98, § 79, ECHR 2007-V) and argued that the Russian State did not bear responsibility for the actions of teachers of nursery schools.
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 68059/13

  The eye drops had been given without the consent of his parents and without any medical necessity therefor having first been established by a medical professional (the applicant referred to Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court has already found in a number of cases where the authorities" failure to show diligence resulted in the prosecution becoming time-barred that the effectiveness of the investigation was irreparably damaged and the purpose of effective protection against acts of ill-treatment was frustrated (see, among many other authorities, V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 189, 7 March 2017; Izci v. Turkey, no. 42606/05, § 72, 23 July 2013; Yazici and Others v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 45046/05, § 27, 23 April 2013; Ablyazov v. Russia, no. 22867/05, §§ 57 and 59, 30 October 2012; Nikiforov v. Russia, no. 42837/04, § 54, 1 July 2010; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 85, 25 June 2009).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 3289/10

  BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  A Contracting State will be responsible under the Convention for violations of human rights caused by acts of its agents carried out in the performance of their duties (see, for example, V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 174, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 25276/15

  VERZILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It is a well-established principle of the Court's case-law that a Contracting State will be responsible under the Convention for violations of human rights caused by acts carried out by its agents in the performance of their duties (see V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 174, 7 March 2017, and Chernega and Others v. Ukraine, no. 74768/10, § 125, 18 June 2019).

 
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10

  CWIK v. POLAND

  This obligation has been recognised, inter alia, in the following "private" contexts: a stepfather beating a child with a cane (see A. v. UK, cited above, §§ 22-24); neglect and abuse suffered by children at the hands of their parents (see Z and Others, cited above, § 74) or their stepfather (see E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, § 89, 26 November 2002); rape (see, among other authorities, M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 148, and S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, § 41, 3 March 2015); violent assault on worshipers (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 102, 3 May 2007); acts of domestic violence and threatening conduct (see, among other authorities, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 161, ECHR 2009, and Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 74-75, 9 July 2019); sectarian violence towards schoolchildren and their parents (see P.F. and E.F. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28326/09, 23 November 2010, § 38); serious assaults on individuals (see, for example, Beganovic, cited above, § 66; Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 95, 17 December 2009; Dimitar Shopov v. Bulgaria, no. 17253/07, § 49, 16 April 2013; and Irina Smirnova v. Ukraine, no. 1870/05, § 73, 13 October 2016); attack on a Hare Krishna member (see Milanovic v. Serbia, no. 44614/07, § 87, 14 December 2010); sterilisation of Roma woman without informed consent (see V.C. v. Slovakia, no. 18968/07, § 119, ECHR 2011 (extracts); sexual abuse of children by a teacher in primary school (see O"Keeffe, cited above, § 153); homophobic violence (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 71, 12 May 2015); and a child's ill-treatment by teachers of a nursery school (see V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 172, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 5578/12

  S.F.K. v. RUSSIA

  Where the behaviour of a State agent is unlawful, the question of whether the impugned acts can be imputed to the State requires an assessment of the totality of the circumstances and consideration of the nature and circumstances of the conduct in question (see, as a recent authority, V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 174, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 47889/08

  VOYKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  It is a well-established principle of the Court's case-law that a Contracting State will be responsible under the Convention for violations of human rights caused by acts of its agents carried out in the performance of their duties (see V.K. v. Russia, no. 68059/13, § 174, 7 March 2017).