Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  This means that it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and to a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances, and of identifying and - if appropriate - punishing those responsible (see, inter alia, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 301, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172).
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  74820/10 and 4 others, § 77, 3 December 2015).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 77).

 
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  BAKLANOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to firstly examine whether the applicants" complaints of ill-treatment were adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 107, 15 May 2012; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 35746/11

  SARIBEKYAN AND BALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  In respect of a person who is deprived of his or her liberty, or, more generally, is confronted with law-enforcement officers, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Bouyid, cited above, §§ 100-01, and Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 35746/11, § 81, 30 January 2020).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 48130/99

  IVAN VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  The burden to prove that this was the case rests on the Government (see Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 72, ECHR 2000-XII, and Boris Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 61701/11, § 53, 21 January 2016).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98

  MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  The Court further reiterates in this connection that, in all cases where it is unable to establish the exact circumstances of a case for reasons objectively attributable to the State authorities, it is for the respondent Government to explain, in a satisfactory and convincing manner, the sequence of events and to exhibit solid evidence that can refute the applicant's allegations (see Mansuroglu v. Turkey, no. 43443/98, § 80, 26 February 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  Also, individuals bear the responsibility of cooperating with procedures flowing from the lodging of their complaints, assisting in clarifying any factual issues where such lie within their knowledge, and maintaining and supporting their complaints and applications (see, notably, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74 and 79, ECHR 1999-V; Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 2040/12

  CHINEZ v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10

  Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert
• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Urteil bestätigt Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit …
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  DZHULAY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  LELYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 61701/11

  BORIS KOSTADINOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 31475/10

  ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42606/05

  IZCI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 38963/18

  V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to first examine whether the applicant's complaints of ill-treatment were adequately investigated by the authorities (see, among recent authorities, Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 326, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR - 15981/17 (anhängig)

  GORANIN v. UKRAINE

  Allegedly, he was ill-treated in connection with his participation in the series of protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21 February 2014, commonly referred to as "Euromaidan" and/or "Maidan" (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021) and in order to extract his confession of having murdered several police officers on 2 March 2014, shortly after the violent clashes between the police and protesters had ended on 21 February 2014.

  Was the applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to his allegations that he was ill-treated by the police on 21 and 22 March 2014? Did the applicant's alleged ill-treatment have any relation to his alleged participation in the Maidan protests (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 359-63, 21 January 2021)?.

• EGMR - 25753/18 (anhängig)

  MELNYK v. UKRAINE

  The applicant was allegedly ill-treated and injured by the police on 18 February 2014 while participating in the series of protests in Ukraine between 21 November 2013 and 21 February 2014, commonly referred to as "Euromaidan" and/or "Maidan" (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 9-17, 21 January 2021).

  Was the applicant subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, having regard to his allegations that he was ill-treated by the police on 18 February 2014 (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, §§ 359-63, 21 January 2021)?.

 
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 56896/17

  LAURIJSEN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In order to establish whether an applicant may claim the protection of Article 11, the Court takes into account (i) whether the assembly was intended to be peaceful or whether the organisers had violent intentions; (ii) whether the applicant demonstrated violent intentions when joining the assembly; and (iii) whether the applicant inflicted bodily harm on anyone (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 491, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR, 22.11.2022 - 48694/10

  ÇIÇEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour rappelle également que, pour déterminer si un requérant peut prétendre à la protection de l'article 11, 1a Cour vérifie: i) si le rassemblement visé était censé être pacifique ou si ses organisateurs avaient des intentions violentes ; ii) si le requérant n'a pas manifesté des intentions violentes dans le cadre de sa participation à la réunion ; iii) si le requérant n'a pas infligé des lésions corporelles à autrui (Shmorgunov et autres c. Ukraine, nos 15367/14 et 13 autres, § 491, 21 janvier 2021).
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 23158/20

  MAKARASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  In order to establish whether an applicant may claim the protection of Article 11, the Court takes into account (i) whether the assembly was intended to be peaceful or whether the organisers had violent intentions; (ii) whether the applicant demonstrated violent intentions when joining the assembly; and (iii) whether the applicant inflicted bodily harm on anyone (see Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 491, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 59564/16

  AVCIOGLU c. TÜRKIYE

  En l'espèce, il appartient à la Cour de vérifier, d'une part, s'il y a eu reconnaissance par les autorités nationales, au moins en substance, d'une violation d'un droit protégé par la Convention et, d'autre part, si la réparation peut être considérée comme ayant été approprié et suffisante (voir, entre autres, Gäfgen, précité, § 127, Kopylov c. Russie, no 3933/04, §§ 144-146, 29 juillet 2010, Tamuçu et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 37930/09, § 41, 24 janvier 2017, et Shmorgunov et autres c. Ukraine, nos 15367/14 et 13 autres, § 399, 21 janvier 2021, mutatis mutandis Murat Aksoy c. Turquie, no 0/17, § 90, 13 avril 2021, et Ilker Deniz Yücel c. Turquie, no 27684/17, § 72, 25 janvier 2022).
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 58262/10

  KAZAN c. TÜRKIYE

  En l'occurrence, bien que devant le parquet et la tribunal correctionnel, la requérante n'ait pas accepté sa participation au rassemblement (paragraphes 9 et 11 ci-dessus), eu égard aux documents du dossier selon lesquels elle affirme s'être rendue devant le palais de justice pour participer à une audience, aux déclarations de sa représentante devant la cour de cassation selon lesquelles elle y était pour exercer ses droits (paragraphe 26 ci-dessus) et dans la mesure où elle été condamné au paiement de dommages-intérêts par le tribunal civil aux fins de remboursement des indemnités versées aux policiers blessés lors de la dispersion du rassemblement au titre de leurs frais médicaux (paragraphe 25 ci-dessus), la Cour considère que cette condamnation s'analyse en une ingérence dans le droit de l'intéressée à la liberté de réunion au regard de l'article 11 de la Convention (à comparer, mutatis mutandis, avec Galstyan c. Armenie, no 26986/03, § 100, 15 novembre 2007, où le requérant a été sanctionné, selon les conclusions du juge, en raison de « l'entrave à la circulation dans la rue'et le « bruit fort'qu'il a provoqués au cours de cette manifestation ; et voir, a contrario, Shmorgunov et autres c. Ukraine, nos 15367/14 et 13 autres, § 487, 21 janvier 2021, où le grief pour violation de son droit à la liberté de réunion pacifique a été rejeté comme non fondé, car il a déclaré que le requérant venait d'observer les manifestations, sans y prendre part).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 27753/19

  EL-ASMAR v. DENMARK

  Regarding the procedural obligation implied by Article 3, the essential purpose of an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment in cases involving State agents or bodies, and to ensure their accountability for ill-treatment occurring under their responsibility (Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, § 329, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 54228/18

  KNEZEVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  15367/14 and 13 others, § 493, 21 January 2021).
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 56983/21

  ASIK c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 23896/21

  GOZALBO MOLINER v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 12781/16

  PETRENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR - 46839/17 (anhängig)

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications