Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TESLENKO v. UKRAINE

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Teslenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 55528/08

  The Court reiterates that where an individual is taken into police custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of the cause of the injury, failing which a clear issue arises under Article 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 55528/08

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 55528/08

  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, 10.10.2000 - 22947/93

  AKKOC v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 55528/08

  In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element to torture, as recognised in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which in Article 1 defines torture in terms of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering with the aim, inter alia, of obtaining information, inflicting punishment or intimidating (see Selmouni v. France [GC], cited above, § 97, and Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 33086/04

  TÜRKAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 55528/08

  Moreover, when the national authorities failed to conduct a medical examination before placing the applicant in detention, as in the present case, the Government cannot rely on that failure in their defence and claim that the injuries in question pre-dated the applicant's detention in police custody (see Türkan v. Turkey, no. 33086/04, § 43, 18 September 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 55528/08

  It should be borne in mind that this obligation stems from the State's international responsibility under the Convention which implies different methods and standards of proof than those applicable in national legal systems regarding criminal prosecution of individuals with due respect of their right to the presumption of innocence (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Alboreo v. France, no. 51019/08, § 153, 20 October 2011).

• EGMR - 23906/15 (anhängig)

  ODARENKO v. UKRAINE

  Have the domestic authorities conducted an effective official investigation into the applicant's alleged ill-treatment, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see, for both questions, Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90 and 114-23, ECHR 2015; Teslenko v. Ukraine, no. 55528/08, §§ 87-90 and 106-18, 20 December 2011; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, §§ 173-80, 15 May 2012; and Sadkov v. Ukraine, no. 21987/05, §§ 91-101, 6 July 2017)?.