Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LOTAREV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  The Court reiterates that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he or she has been seriously ill-treated by the police in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the States' general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in ... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria , 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 - VIII, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 - IV).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  That being so, 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, mutatis mutandis , Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999 - V) .
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  Moreover, as a detainee, he was in a particularly vulnerable position and the authorities were under a duty to protect his physical well-being (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia , no. 41461/02, § 57, 24 July 2008, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  When assessing conditions of detention , account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention in the particular conditions (see Dougoz v. Greece , no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001 - II, and Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002 - VI).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see Ribitsch v. Austria , 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, and, for more recent case-law, Sheydayev v. Russia , no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  When assessing conditions of detention , account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and the duration of the detention in the particular conditions (see Dougoz v. Greece , no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001 - II, and Kalashnikov v. Russia , no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002 - VI).
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 31866/96

  SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  The Court cannot accept the Government's argument that the prison administration was not aware of what had happened to the applicant, as being deprived of his liberty he was subject to its control and responsibility (see Satık and Others v. Turkey , no. 31866/96, § 54, 10 October 2000).

• 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, 13.10.2015 - 50860/12

  ROSCA c. ROUMANIE

  Elle estime que ses allégations manquent de précision et que le requérant n'a pas apporté de détails concrets pour soutenir ses arguments selon lesquels la perte de poids qu'il a subie était due à la qualité de la nourriture (mutatis mutandis, Lotarev c. Ukraine, no 29447/04, § 103, 8 avril 2010).