Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,13797
EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,13797)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.06.2015 - 10705/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,13797)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juni 2015 - 10705/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,13797)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,13797) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    USHAKOV AND USHAKOVA v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right ...

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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    The right not to incriminate oneself, in particular, presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 100, ECHR 2006-IX).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    The Court must establish, firstly, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the first applicant were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

    Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    As a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, ECHR 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 4378/02

    Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (heimliche Ermittlungsmethoden; Umgehungsverbot;

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    They also contribute to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused (see Salduz, cited above, § 53, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 92, 10 March 2009, with further references, and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 68, 24 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    The Court emphasises that where an individual raises an arguable claim that he has been seriously ill-treated in breach of Article 3, that provision, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 7025/04

    PISHCHALNIKOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    They also contribute to the prevention of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the aims of Article 6, notably equality of arms between the investigating or prosecuting authorities and the accused (see Salduz, cited above, § 53, Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 92, 10 March 2009, with further references, and Pishchalnikov v. Russia, no. 7025/04, § 68, 24 September 2009).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 29731/96

    Dieter Krombach

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    The Court emphasises that, although not absolute, the right of everyone charged with a criminal offence to be effectively defended by a lawyer, assigned officially if need be, is one of the fundamental features of fair trial (see Krombach v. France, no. 29731/96, § 89, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 26103/95

    VAN GEYSEGHEM c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 10705/12
    The Court reiterates that the requirements of paragraph 3 of Article 6 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by paragraph 1 of that Article and thus they are to be examined together (see Van Geyseghem v. Belgium [GC], no. 26103/95, § 27, ECHR 1999-I).
  • EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 78510/11

    OKUYUCU v. TURKEY

    As for non-pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the finding of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention in the instant case constitutes sufficient just satisfaction, given the possibility under Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of having the domestic proceedings reopened in the event that the Court finds a violation of the Convention (see, in particular, Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine, no. 10705/12, § 112, 18 June 2015, and Golubyatnikov and Zhuchkov v. Russia, nos. 44822/06 and 49869/06, § 122, 9 October 2018).
  • EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 73975/16

    A AND B v. GEORGIA

    What is more, whilst the law-enforcement authorities were perfectly aware that he was using various attributes of his official position to commit abuse against C (intimidating her with his service pistol on many occasions, repeatedly claiming impunity for his acts on account of his belonging to the law-enforcement machinery, threatening to bring false charges against C's father and brother if the victim reported the abuse to the police, and so on), not only did the police not put an end to that demonstration of ultimate impunity and arbitrariness (see Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine, no. 10705/12, § 83, 18 June 2015), they, on the contrary, allowed the alleged abuser to participate in the questioning of his victim and soon after promoted the abuser to a higher police rank (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above).
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