Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YATSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Yatsenko v. Ukraine

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

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  Consideration is often given to the date of commencement of investigations, delays in taking statements (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, § 67), and the length of time taken to complete the initial investigation (see Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001).
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 75520/01

  KOZINETS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 29447/04

  LOTAREV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  More specifically, in order to ensure sufficiency of public scrutiny, the victim or his or her family must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests (see, for example, Yatsenko v. Ukraine, no. 75345/01, § 43, 16 February 2012; see also, albeit in the context of Article 2 of the Convention, Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 179, 14 April 2015; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 133, in fine, 4 May 2001; Cangöz and Others v. Turkey, no. 7469/06, § 144, 26 April 2016; and Karatas and Others v. Turkey, no. 46820/09, § 86, 12 September 2017).