Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANILOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  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 (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Danilov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DANILOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. ... 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  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, §§ 100-101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  The applicant also noted that he had been force-fed, but provided no description of the force-feeding procedure or his personal suffering in connection with the manner in which he had been force-fed (compare and contrast, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 78, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  Cases concerning allegations of inadequate conditions of detention do not lend themselves to a rigorous application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation) because in such instances the respondent Government alone have access to information capable of corroborating or refuting these allegations (see, for example, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 89, 23 July 2013).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  Likewise, it does not explain which specific techniques were applied and how they correlated with the applicant's particular actions (see e.g. Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 760/03, §§ 80-82, 26 July 2012 Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, §§ 13, 17 and 30-31, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, 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 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16

  PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE

  (iii) No apparent thorough effort to collect objective evidence, in particular: police officers' accounts taken at face value; no face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and the officers implicated by him in the ill-treatment or other steps with a view to reconciling discrepancies between their accounts and verifying the origin of the documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 70, 13 March 2014, and A.N. v. Ukraine, no. 13837/09, §§ 67-70, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  In any event, it has not been shown by the State that the applicant's injuries resulted from a legitimate application of force or that no ill-treatment took place (for relevant examples, see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 76, ECHR 2000-XII; Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, §§ 65-67, 13 March 2014; and Sylenok and Tekhnoservis-Plus v. Ukraine, no. 20988/02, §§ 69-70, 9 December 2010).
• EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 7174/11

  DEBELYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  (i) Having regard to nature, gravity and dispersed location of injuries, and account of arrest operation, it has not been convincingly shown that all of applicant's injuries resulted from application of legitimate force (for relevant examples, see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 76, ECHR 2000-XII; Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, §§ 65-67, 13 March 2014; and Sylenok and Tekhnoservis-Plus v. Ukraine, no. 20988/02, §§ 69-70, 9 December 2010);.

  (v) Delays in apprising applicant of procedural developments (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 70, 13 March 2014, and Barysheva v. Ukraine, no. 9505/12, § 61, 14 March 2017);.

• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 19574/09

  ZABOLOTNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Regard being had to nature, gravity and dispersed location of applicant's injuries and account of arrest operation, notably, number of officers involved, it has not been shown that the force applied during applicant's arrest was "proportionate" or that any of his injuries predated his arrest (for relevant examples, see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 76, ECHR 2000-XII and Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, §§ 64-67, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 28242/10

  VOROBYEV v. UKRAINE

  Nevertheless, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and provide - to the greatest possible extent - some evidence in support of their complaints (see Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 78, 13 March 2014, with further references).