Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SALAKHOV AND ISLYAMOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  Another factor leading the Court to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in particular, in respect of relatives of a victim of an enforced disappearance, was the continuous nature of their psychological suffering (see, for example, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 166, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97

  BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  Another factor leading the Court to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, in particular, in respect of relatives of a victim of an enforced disappearance, was the continuous nature of their psychological suffering (see, for example, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 166, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  The obligation in Article 34 not to interfere with an individual's effective exercise of the right to submit and pursue a complaint before the Court confers upon an applicant a right of a procedural nature - which can be asserted in Convention proceedings - distinguishable from the substantive rights set out under Section I of the Convention or its Protocols (see, for instance, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 470, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  One of the important factors for such an assessment is a sharp deterioration in a person's state of health in detention facilities, which inevitably casts doubts as regards the adequacy of medical care available therein (see Farbtuhs v. Latvia, cited above, § 57, and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 84, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  The Court emphasises that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to ensure, given the practical demands of imprisonment, that the health and well-being of a prisoner are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the required medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 09.03.2004 - 61827/00

  GLASS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  The Court notes that the hospital in question was a public institution, the acts and omissions of its medical staff being therefore capable of engaging the responsibility of the respondent State under the Convention (see Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, § 71, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 33834/03

  RIVIERE c. FRANCE

• BVerfG, 19.01.2023 - 2 BvR 1719/21

  Erfolgreiche Verfassungsbeschwerde eines Sicherungsverwahrten gegen die …

  Maßgeblich zu berücksichtigen ist, ob die Fesselung angeordnet wurde, obwohl der Gefangene durch sein Verhalten während der Haft in der Vergangenheit keinen Grund zu Beanstandungen gegeben hat (vgl. EGMR, Shlykov and others v. Russia, Urteil vom 19. Januar 2021, Nr. 78638/11, §§ 72 ff.; Kashavelov v. Bulgaria, Urteil vom 20. Januar 2011, Nr. 891/05, §§ 38 ff.; Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, Urteil vom 14. März 2013, Nr. 28005/08, § 154).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  The Court also notes that it has applied the principles laid down in the cases mentioned above in some exceptional situations outside the context of disappearance (see, in the context of detention and deportation of an unaccompanied minor asylum seeker, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006-XI; in the context of allegations of sexual abuse of a child in the family environment, M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/08, 15 November 2011; with respect to the conditions in which the bodies of deceased relatives had been stored during the identification process, Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts); in the context of lack of adequate medical care in detention followed by death and a flawed domestic investigation, Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, 14 March 2013; and in the context of emotional suffering caused to a relative by removal of tissue from a deceased's body without the relative's knowledge or consent, Elberte v. Latvia, no. 61243/08, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  Nevertheless, the Court has considered a separate finding of a violation of Article 3 to be justified in situations of confirmed death where the applicants were direct witnesses to the suffering of their family members (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 204, 14 March 2013, where the applicant witnessed the slow death of her son who was in detention, without being able to help him; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of an applicant who had witnessed the killing of his entire family, but no violation was found in respect of other applicants who had only later found out about the killings; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008, where the applicants were unable to bury the dismembered and decapitated bodies of their children in a proper manner; Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  However, in order for a separate violation of Article 3 of the Convention to be found in respect of the victim's relatives, there should be special factors in place giving their suffering a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress inevitably stemming from the aforementioned violation itself (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 199, 14 March 2013).
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court has also held on many occasions that handcuffing or shackling of an ill or otherwise weak person is disproportionate to the requirements of security and implies an unjustifiable humiliation, whether or not intentional (see, for example, Okhrimenko v. Ukraine, no. 53896/07, § 98, 15 October 2009, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, §§ 155 and 156, 14 March 2013).
• EGMR, 28.07.2022 - 55025/17

  AKHPOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In particular, having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court in application no. 51076/18, in breach of its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Khloyev v. Russia, no. 46404/13, §§ 63-68, 5 February 2015, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, §§ 216-24, 14 March 2013).
• EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 48475/09

  SAKIR c. GRÈCE

  Il incombera alors au Gouvernement de fournir des explications et des documents à l'appui de celles-ci (voir Salakhov et Islyamova c. Ukraine, no 28005/08, § 132, 14 mars 2013).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 78682/14

  CHANIOTIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Il incombera alors au Gouvernement de fournir des explications et des documents à l'appui de celles-ci (Salakhov et Islyamova c. Ukraine, no 28005/08, § 132, 14 mars 2013).
• EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 20378/13

  MARTZAKLIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  Il incombera alors au Gouvernement de fournir des explications et des documents à l'appui de celles-ci (Salakhov et Islyamova c. Ukraine, no 28005/08, § 132, 14 mars 2013).
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 4006/17

  KAMINSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  In order to establish whether or not the respondent State complied with its obligation to protect J.F's life under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must examine whether the relevant domestic authorities did everything that could have been required of them, in good faith and in a timely manner, to try to avert a fatal outcome (see Makharadze and Sikharulidze, cited above, § 74 and Rudevits v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47590/06, § 48, 26 June 2012).The Court will thus examine whether the medical treatment received in detention by the applicants" relative was timely and adequate (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 77-89, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts) and compare Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 166, 14 March 2013).