Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRIGORYEV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  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 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  As the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the core values of democratic societies (see, among many other references, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  The burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention in reality formed part of his detention as a criminal suspect, but without the requisite safeguards for his procedural rights, notably the right to defence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and, mutatis, mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 55-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention in reality formed part of his detention as a criminal suspect, but without the requisite safeguards for his procedural rights, notably the right to defence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and, mutatis, mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 55-56, 19 February 2009).

• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 26074/18

  V v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court has previously found that subjecting a person to electric shocks is a particularly serious form of ill-treatment capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering (see Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 64, 15 May 2012; Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, §§ 75-76, 30 September 2014; Kancia?‚ v. Poland, no. 37023/13, § 78, 23 May 2019; and Znakovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 32715/17, § 46, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 10049/20

  SOKOLOVAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has previously found that subjecting a person to electric shocks is a particularly serious form of ill-treatment capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering (see Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 90, 15 May 2012; Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, §§ 75-76, 30 September 2014; and Kancial v. Poland, no. 37023/13, § 78, 23 May 2019; see also the 20th General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), published in 2010, cited in Znakovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 32715/17, § 33, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  NASAKIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 12042/09

  MOSTIPAN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.