Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 23893/03
- EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
- EGMR - 23893/03
Wird zitiert von ... (14) Neu Zitiert selbst (17)
- EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01
MERIT v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
The Court considers that such reluctance on the part of prosecutors, in particular in situations where criminal suspects were allegedly ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession, could be explained, at least to a certain extent, by prosecutors" conflicting tasks in criminal proceedings - prosecution on behalf of the State and supervision of the lawfulness of pre-trial investigations (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; Melnik, cited above, § 69; Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 95, 19 October 2006; reports by the Ukrainian Ombudsman at paragraphs 55-59 above and the relevant observations of the UN Committee against Torture at paragraph 75 above). - EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01
KOVAL v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
The Court considers that such reluctance on the part of prosecutors, in particular in situations where criminal suspects were allegedly ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession, could be explained, at least to a certain extent, by prosecutors" conflicting tasks in criminal proceedings - prosecution on behalf of the State and supervision of the lawfulness of pre-trial investigations (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; Melnik, cited above, § 69; Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 95, 19 October 2006; reports by the Ukrainian Ombudsman at paragraphs 55-59 above and the relevant observations of the UN Committee against Torture at paragraph 75 above). - EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00
NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
The Court considers that such reluctance on the part of prosecutors, in particular in situations where criminal suspects were allegedly ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession, could be explained, at least to a certain extent, by prosecutors" conflicting tasks in criminal proceedings - prosecution on behalf of the State and supervision of the lawfulness of pre-trial investigations (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; Melnik, cited above, § 69; Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 95, 19 October 2006; reports by the Ukrainian Ombudsman at paragraphs 55-59 above and the relevant observations of the UN Committee against Torture at paragraph 75 above).
- EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01
SALOV v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
The Court considers that such reluctance on the part of prosecutors, in particular in situations where criminal suspects were allegedly ill-treated with the aim of extracting a confession, could be explained, at least to a certain extent, by prosecutors" conflicting tasks in criminal proceedings - prosecution on behalf of the State and supervision of the lawfulness of pre-trial investigations (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005; Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; Melnik, cited above, § 69; Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 95, 19 October 2006; reports by the Ukrainian Ombudsman at paragraphs 55-59 above and the relevant observations of the UN Committee against Torture at paragraph 75 above). - EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02
KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08
GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 12793/03
BALITSKIY v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII). - EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
The assessment of this level 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 sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03
Relying on the Court's decisions in Kalashnikov v. Russia (no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI), Khokhlich v. Ukraine (no. 41707/98, 29 April 2003), Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006), Vinokurov v. Ukraine and Russia ((dec.), no. 2937/04, 16 October 2007), and Aliev v. Ukraine (No. 2) ((dec.), no. 33617/02, 14 October 2008), the Government argued that by the terms of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention the applicant had been required to raise the complaint of inadequate medical assistance before the national authorities so that they could have had an opportunity to investigate the conditions of the applicant's detention and, if his complaint had been found to be well-substantiated, to suggest ways of improving the situation. - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 33617/02
ALIEV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04
KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16
PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE
The Court notes that in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, §§ 173-80, 15 May 2012), it found that the reluctance of the authorities to ensure a prompt and thorough investigation of ill-treatment complaints lodged against police authorities constituted a systemic problem within the meaning of Article 46 of the Convention. - EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 29263/12
S.Z. c. BULGARIE
Elle considère que les autorités nationales, en coopération avec le Comité des Ministres, sont les mieux placées pour identifier les différentes causes du problème systémique lié à l'inefficacité des enquêtes et de décider des mesures générales qui s'imposent concrètement pour prévenir des violations similaires à l'avenir, ceci afin de lutter contre l'impunité et de préserver l'État de droit et la confiance du public et des victimes dans le système judiciaire (voir Kaverzin c. Ukraine, no 23893/03, § 181, 15 mai 2012). - EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14
SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to firstly examine whether the applicants" complaints of ill-treatment were adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 107, 15 May 2012; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
- EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02
KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
In determining whether the authorities have discharged their health-care obligations vis-à-vis a detainee in their charge, the Court's task is to assess the quality of the medical services provided to the detainee in the light of his state of health and "the practical demands of imprisonment" and to determine whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, the health-care standard applied was compatible with the human dignity of the detainee (see, for instance, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 138, 15 May 2012, with further references). - EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07
LENEV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11
VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE
The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 concerning pre-investigation enquiries can be found in the judgment in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 45, 15 May 2012). - EGMR - 9113/18 (anhängig)
RYBIY v. UKRAINE and 5 other applications
Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 169-182, 15 May 2012), was the investigation of the applicant's relevant complaints by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?. - EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 48309/19
LANIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Given the circumstances, the Court has no grounds to find that the authorities failed to provide the applicant with the necessary medical care and treatment (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 145-47, 15 May 2012, and D.G. v. Poland, no. 45705/07, § 175, 12 February 2013). - EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 15442/08
TANIS v. TURKEY
In determining whether the authorities have discharged their health-care obligations vis-à-vis a detainee in their charge, the Court's task is to assess the quality of the medical services provided to the detainee in the light of his state of health and "the practical demands of imprisonment" and to determine whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, the health-care standard applied was compatible with the human dignity of the detainee (see, for instance, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 138, 15 May 2012, with further references). - EGMR - 47282/15 (anhängig)
TSARENKO v. UKRAINE and 3 other applications
Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 169-182, 15 May 2012), was the investigation of the applicants" relevant complaints by the domestic authorities compatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention?. - EGMR - 60840/19 (anhängig)
PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR - 60048/16 (anhängig)
KRASNOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR - 23906/15 (anhängig)
ODARENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR - 54825/18 (anhängig)
ROMANENKO v. UKRAINE