Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZNAYKIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  As to the Government's plea of non-exhaustion in respect of the physical conditions of detention, the Court notes that, on a number of occasions, it has rejected similar objections when it has found that such complaints pointed to problems of a structural nature in the domestic prison system (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, Melnik, cited above, §§ 69-71; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009).

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; and Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  However, the Court has held on a number of occasions that a hierarchical complaint does not constitute an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 53341/99

  Rechtssache H. gegen TSCHECHISCHE REPUBLIK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  However, the Court has held on a number of occasions that a hierarchical complaint does not constitute an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  In the Court's opinion that factor adds to the problem of the insufficient cell space (see Karalevicius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, § 36, 7 April 2005, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 105, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 62198/16

  SHVETS v. UKRAINE

  In other words, there is no obligation to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 67, 7 October 2010).