Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,1210
EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,1210)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17.01.2013 - 17116/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,1210)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Januar 2013 - 17116/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,1210)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,1210) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SIZAREV v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Inhuman treatment Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court thus concludes that, while the length of a period of detention may be a relevant factor in assessing the gravity of suffering or humiliation caused to a detainee by the inadequate conditions of his detention (see, for example, Dougoz, cited above, § 48, and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 102, ECHR 2002-VI), the relative brevity of such a period alone will not automatically exclude the treatment complained of from the scope of Article 3 if all other elements are sufficient to bring it within the scope of that provision (see Mkhitaryan, cited above, § 55).
  • EGMR, 03.06.2003 - 33343/96

    PANTEA c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    At the same time the Court has consistently interpreted that obligation in such a manner as would not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, § 189, ECHR 2003-VI).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

    M.C. c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court reiterates that when an individual makes an arguable claim that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of agents of the State, it is the duty of the national authorities to carry out "an effective official investigation" capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII. Such a positive obligation cannot be considered, in principle, to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII).
  • EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

    FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court observes that conditions of detention for a comparable and even a much shorter period have been previously found to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 (see, for example, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, where the applicant was detained for twenty-two hours with no food and water or access to a toilet; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 100-111, 24 January 2008, where the applicants were detained in poor conditions for periods of fifteen and eleven days; and Mkhitaryan v. Armenia, no. 22390/05, § 55, 2 December 2008, where the length of the impugned detention was ten days).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

    OKKALI c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court reiterates that when an individual makes an arguable claim that he has suffered treatment infringing Article 3 of the Convention, at the hands of agents of the State, it is the duty of the national authorities to carry out "an effective official investigation" capable of establishing the facts and identifying and punishing those responsible (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006-XII. Such a positive obligation cannot be considered, in principle, to be limited solely to cases of ill-treatment by State agents (see M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

    RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court observes that conditions of detention for a comparable and even a much shorter period have been previously found to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 (see, for example, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, where the applicant was detained for twenty-two hours with no food and water or access to a toilet; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 100-111, 24 January 2008, where the applicants were detained in poor conditions for periods of fifteen and eleven days; and Mkhitaryan v. Armenia, no. 22390/05, § 55, 2 December 2008, where the length of the impugned detention was ten days).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

    MKHITARYAN v. ARMENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court observes that conditions of detention for a comparable and even a much shorter period have been previously found to be incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 (see, for example, Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, §§ 66-70, 25 October 2005, where the applicant was detained for twenty-two hours with no food and water or access to a toilet; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 100-111, 24 January 2008, where the applicants were detained in poor conditions for periods of fifteen and eleven days; and Mkhitaryan v. Armenia, no. 22390/05, § 55, 2 December 2008, where the length of the impugned detention was ten days).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

    PREMININY v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04
    The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the Contracting States not only to refrain from causing ill-treatment, but also to take the necessary preventive measures to preserve the physical safety and well-being of persons deprived of their liberty who find themselves in a vulnerable position by virtue of being under the control of the authorities (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX, and Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 73, 10 February 2011).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 76680/17

    D v. LATVIA

    Another important factor in the Court's assessment of the State's compliance with its obligations under Article 3 is whether the prisoner was part of a particularly vulnerable group, for instance because he belongs to a category at a heightened risk of abuse (see Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011, concerning homosexuals; J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012, concerning police collaborators; D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, §§ 81-84, 29 October 2013, and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015, concerning sexual offenders; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 114-15, 17 January 2013, and Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014, concerning former police officers).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 36463/11

    S.P. ANS OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Another important factor in the Court's assessment of the State's compliance with its obligations under Article 3 is whether the prisoner was part of a particularly vulnerable group, for instance because he belongs to a category at a heightened risk of abuse (see Stasi v. France, no. 25001/07, § 91, 20 October 2011, concerning homosexuals; J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, § 68, 17 April 2012, concerning police collaborators; D.F. v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 81-84, and M.C. v. Poland, no. 23692/09, § 90, 3 March 2015, concerning sexual offenders; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 114-15, 17 January 2013; and Totolici v. Romania, no. 26576/10, §§ 48-49, 14 January 2014, concerning former police officers).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

    MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

    The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 56796/13

    ABDI MAHAMUD v. MALTA

    The Government referred to the Court's case-law (Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, 17 January 2013; Selcuk and Akser v. Turkey, nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94, 24 April 1998; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III); and particularly Aden Ahmed (cited above), and the principles cited therein.
  • EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

    MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

    The Government referred to the Court's case-law (Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, 17 January 2013; Selcuk and Akser v. Turkey, nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94, 24 April 1998; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III); and particularly Aden Ahmed (cited above), and the principles cited therein.
  • EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 35523/06

    ISAYEVA v. UKRAINE

    This consideration, nonetheless, by no means diminishes the duty to investigate and eventually prosecute, particularly where an applicant is under the care and responsibility of the authorities (see Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 120, 17 January 2013).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06

    SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

    GAVRYLOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award could be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts was consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and was speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
  • EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

    MINDROVA v. UKRAINE

    Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht