Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOROBOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  It takes the view that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 101, ECHR 1999-V).

  See, among many 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, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  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, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises 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 (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  Nonetheless, when allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny - even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  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 Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, §§ 108-111, Series A no. 241-A, p. 4-41, and Ribitsch, cited above, § 34, p. 26).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 39598/03

  Nonetheless, when allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny - even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 19.07.2012 - 31939/06

  ALEKSAKHIN v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that this amount is significantly lower than the amount it generally awards in comparable cases lodged against Ukraine (see Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 99, 21 July 2011, and Savin v. Ukraine, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 16.06.2016 - 11984/06

  KUZMINA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously found violations in similar cases against Ukraine (see Zhuk, §§ 29-35, cited above, and Korobov v. Ukraine, no. 39598/03, § 92, 21 July 2011), stating that by virtue of the domestic law applicable at that time, the prosecutor had the advantage of being present at that type of hearing before the Supreme Court and, unlike the defendant, could make oral submissions to the three-judge panel, such submissions being intended to influence the latter's opinion.