Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOKIL v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SOKIL v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  The applicant submitted, referring to the Court's case-law in this respect (see Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, §§ 92-98, 19 October 2006) that there were no effective domestic remedies in respect of his complaint.
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  A lack of appropriate medical care may thus amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  In particular, a complaint to a public prosecutor cannot be considered such a remedy (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

  SALOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  In particular, a complaint to a public prosecutor cannot be considered such a remedy (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

  MERIT v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  In particular, a complaint to a public prosecutor cannot be considered such a remedy (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, ECHR 2005-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  The Court has emphasised on a number of occasions that the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).