Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREY YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Degrading treatment ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The mere appointment of a legal-aid lawyer does not in itself settle the issue of compliance with the requirements of Article 6 § 3 (c), and the competent national authorities may be required under Article 6 § 3 (c) to intervene if a failure by a legal-aid lawyer to provide effective representation is manifest or sufficiently brought to their attention in some other way (see Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 65, Series A no. 168; Daud v. Portugal, 21 April 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-II; and Iglin, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The Court reiterates that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Convention are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 of that Article and are thus to be examined together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  Where the defendants are detained, the conditions of their detention, transport, catering and other similar arrangements are the relevant factors to consider in this respect (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 71 and 89, Series A no. 146; Mayzit v. Russia, cited above, § 81; and Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, § 222, 9 October 2008).

 
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  Where a matter complained of, being clearly and consistently expressed by an applicant, is of such a nature that only the respondent Government have access to documents capable of corroborating or refuting the relevant allegations, failure on their part to submit convincing and rigorous evidence may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)); and Titarenko, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 7377/03

  DAYANAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The very fact of unjustified restriction of access of a detained suspect to a lawyer may prejudice the rights of the defence, even where no incriminating statements were obtained as a result (see for example Dayanan v. Turkey, no. 7377/03, §§ 32-33, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  Where a matter complained of, being clearly and consistently expressed by an applicant, is of such a nature that only the respondent Government have access to documents capable of corroborating or refuting the relevant allegations, failure on their part to submit convincing and rigorous evidence may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the validity of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)); and Titarenko, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  The Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in managing their proceedings, but to consider whether the method chosen by them has led in a given case to results which are compatible with the Convention (see for established authority Hadjianastassiou v. Greece, 16 December 1992, § 33, Series A no. 252).
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13611/88

  Klaus Croissant

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  However, they can override those wishes when there are relevant and sufficient grounds for holding that this is necessary in the interests of justice (see Croissant v. Germany, 25 September 1992, § 29, Series A no. 237-B, and Mayzit v. Russia, cited above, § 66).

• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

  SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  As the applicants did not notify the competent domestic authorities of any respective concerns, the Court, without the benefit of the comments from these authorities, has no basis on which to establish that any such misconduct might have taken place (see, in particular, Vinokurov v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.) no. 2937/04, 16/10/2007 and Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, § 85, 13 March 2014).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37794/14

  NAGORSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The applicant failed to substantiate that at any particular point in time during this period he had suffered from serious health problems, demanded the relevant assistance but received inadequate treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see and compare Zinchenko v. Ukraine, no. 63763/11, § 58, 13 March 2014, and Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, § 79, 13 March 2014).