Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Criminal ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. ... 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. a, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. b, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that the Colony administration failed to find any solution for the applicant's chronic dental decay until his mother provided the necessary supplies (see, mutatis mutandis, Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no. 4672/02, § 60, 2 December 2004; Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 87, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); and Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, § 82, 18 December 2008).
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  In these circumstances, the Court reiterates that where a matter complained of 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, for instance, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005 X (extracts); Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010; and Titarenko, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 13448/07

  LOGVINENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  As regards other elements of the applicant's complaint, the case-file materials do not indicate that his state of health deteriorated during his detention in the Slavyanoserbsk Colony, or that on account of unavailability of particular medication, treatment or medical supervision he had suffered pain or hardship of an intensity attracting applicability of Article 3 (see, by contrast, for instance, Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-69, 14 October 2010, and Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, §§ 69-71, 16 May 2013).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 35972/05

  IACOV STANCIU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  On the basis of the available materials the Court has no grounds to conclude that the two-month delay in the applicant's dental treatment resulted in suffering attracting applicability of Article 3 of the Convention, or led to any adverse consequences whatsoever for his future health (compare and contrast Iacov Stanciu v. Romania, no. 35972/05, §§ 183-184, 24 July 2012).
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06

  BARILO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  As regards other elements of the applicant's complaint, the case-file materials do not indicate that his state of health deteriorated during his detention in the Slavyanoserbsk Colony, or that on account of unavailability of particular medication, treatment or medical supervision he had suffered pain or hardship of an intensity attracting applicability of Article 3 (see, by contrast, for instance, Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, §§ 68-69, 14 October 2010, and Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, §§ 69-71, 16 May 2013).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

  VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  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, 28.11.2023 - 38750/20

  MURACA v. ITALY

  In these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence that the temporary unavailability of repairing the dental implant resulted in suffering attracting applicability of Article 3 of the Convention (see Györgypál, cited above, § 56, and Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 69250/11, § 52, 13 March 2014; see also, a contrario, Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, § 47, 13 December 2016, and Dragan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).