Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Savin v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  The key considerations leading the Court to this conclusion are, firstly, the severity of the ill-treatment, which impaired the applicant's health to such an extent that he became disabled, and, secondly, the intentional nature of that ill-treatment in that it was aimed at extracting from the applicant a confession to a crime (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 97 and 101, ECHR 1999-V, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, cited above, § 149).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  The Court further reiterates that the obligations of the State under Article 3 cannot be satisfied merely by an award of damages (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 58, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  This is so because if the authorities could confine their reaction to incidents of wilful ill-treatment by State agents to the mere payment of compensation, while not doing enough to prosecute and punish those responsible (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, no. 41461/02, §§ 78 and 79, 24 July 2008).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 34725/08

  Having regard to the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant, the Court considers that the costs and expenses indicated by him were both necessarily and actually incurred (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 32715/19

  M.S. c. ITALIE

  La Cour a ainsi conclu à la violation des garanties procédurales de l'article 3 dans des affaires où la prescription avait joué parce que les autorités n'avaient pas agi avec la promptitude et la diligence requises (voir, entre autres, Bati et autres c. Turquie, nos 33097/96 et 57834/00, §§ 97 et 145-147, CEDH 2004-IV (extraits), Abdülsamet Yaman, précité, § 59, Yesil et Sevim c. Turquie, no 34738/04, §§ 38-42, 5 juin 2007, Erdogan Yilmaz et autres c. Turquie, no 19374/03, § 57, 14 octobre 2008, Erdal Aslan c. Turquie, nos 25060/02 et 1705/03, §§ 75-79, 2 décembre 2008, Paduret c. Moldova, no 33134/03, § 75, 5 janvier 2010, Karagöz et autres c. Turquie, nos 14352/05 et 2 autres, §§ 53-55, 13 juillet 2010, Savin c. Ukraine, no 34725/08, §§ 70-71, 16 février 2012, Ugur c. Turquie, no 37308/05, § 105, 13 janvier 2015, et Barovov c. Russie, no 9183/09, § 42, 15 juin 2021).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  LENEV v. BULGARIA

  25060/02 and 1705/03, § 73, 2 December 2008; Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 157 in fine, 21 April 2011; Savin v. Ukraine, no. 34725/08, § 62, 16 February 2012; and Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 123-24, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 22429/05

  KOVAL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  This situation, in the Court's view, certifies that virtually total impunity for torture or ill-treatment is afforded to the law-enforcement agencies (see Savin v. Ukraine, no. 34725/08, § 71, 16 February 2012).