Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,62384
EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06 (https://dejure.org/2007,62384)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.10.2007 - 15825/06 (https://dejure.org/2007,62384)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Oktober 2007 - 15825/06 (https://dejure.org/2007,62384)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,62384) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objections allowed (alleged ill-treatment non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (conditions of detention) Violation of Art. 3 (lack of appropriate medical assistance) Violation of Art. 3 (conditions of transportation) Violation of ...

 
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 ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    The authorities were thereby made sufficiently aware of the applicant's situation and had an opportunity to examine the conditions of his detention and, if appropriate, to offer redress (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, and Melnik, cited above, § 70).

    This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    However, such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    The lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII, and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 90, 4 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

    SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    The lack of appropriate medical care may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 87, ECHR 2000-VII, and Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 90, 4 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

    KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    The Court finds that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during his repeated transports between the Sevastopol ITT and Simferopol SIZO exceeded the minimum level of severity (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 116-120, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)) and that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

    HURTADO c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06
    It further reiterates that the authorities are under an obligation to protect the health of persons deprived of liberty (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A, opinion of the Commission, § 79).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

    DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    From the Court's point of view this in itself was not compatible with the standards established by the Convention and the Court's case-law, which has already established that a space of 1-2.5 m² of space per prisoner amounts to continuous and severe overcrowding (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 84, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 66, 12 October 2006).

    (d) conditions of detention ((see, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 149, ECHR 2003-V; Aliev v. Ukraine, cited above, § 150; Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, cited above, § 128; Nazarenko v. Ukraine, cited above, § 144; Khokhlich v. Ukraine, cited above, 182; Dankevich v. Ukraine, cited above, § 145; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 89, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh, cited above, § 69).

  • EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 10921/03

    GAVRILITA c. ROUMANIE

    La Cour estime probable que l'intéressé contracta la tuberculose dans ce centre de détention (cf., Staïkov c. Bulgarie, no 49438/99, § 81, 12 octobre 2006 ; Yakovenko c. Ukraine, no 15825/06, §§ 28 et 95, 25 octobre 2007 ; Hummatov c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 9852/03 et 13413/04, § 111, 29 novembre 2007).

    La présente affaire est en fait tout-à-fait comparable à celles citées par la chambre, par exemple Yakovenko c. Ukraine (no 15825/06, 25 octobre 2007) et Hummatov c. Azerbaïdjan (nos 9852/03 et 13413/04, 29 novembre 2007).

  • EGMR, 07.04.2009 - 6586/03

    BRANDUSE c. ROUMANIE

    De surcroît, elle note que le requérant a attiré l'attention des autorités sur les conditions de détention (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus et, mutatis mutandis, Yakovenko c. Ukraine, no 15825/06, § 76, 25 octobre 2007, et Seleznev c. Russie, no 15591/03, § 33, 26 juin 2008).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 1858/08

    LAVRINYUK v. UKRAINE

    The relevant extracts from the reports of the CPT concerning conditions of transportation of detainees in Ukraine can be found in Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 59-61, 25 October 2007).

    The Court observes that it has rejected non-exhaustion arguments, similar to those raised by the Government in the present case, in a number of other cases where the complaints concerned problems of a structural nature in the domestic penitentiary system (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 75-76, 25 October 2007; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009; and Logvinenko v. Ukraine, no. 13448/07, § 57, 14 October 2010).

  • EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 38270/11

    NEDIM SENER c. TURQUIE

    La Cour rappelle avoir considéré que la privation de sommeil appliquée durant de longues périodes ou combinée avec d'autres méthodes de coercition durant les interrogatoires peut constituer un traitement qui serait contraire à l'article 3 de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Irlande, précité, § 64, Yakovenko c. Ukraine, no 15825/06, § 85 et 89, 25 octobre 2007, et, mutatis mutandis, Gouliyev c. Russie, no 24650/02, § 64, 19 juin 2008.
  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 3653/05

    ASADBEYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

    The Court reiterates that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account statements from the applicant's heirs or close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among many others, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI; Toteva v. Bulgaria, no. 42027/98, § 45, 19 May 2004; Mutlu v. Turkey, no. 8006/02, §§ 13-14, 10 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 65, 25 October 2007; and Getiren v. Turkey, no. 10301/03, §§ 60-62, 22 July 2008).
  • EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 15028/04

    BRUZTTIS v. LATVIA

    The Court has accepted that the following persons may continue the applicant's case after the latter's death: a wife (Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 41, ECHR 2000-IX), a sibling (Horváthová v. Slovakia, no. 74456/01, §§ 25-27, 17 May 2005), a mother (Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 65, 25 October 2007), a life partner (Pisarkiewicz v. Poland, no. 18967/02, §§ 30-33, 22 January 2008), a child (Ashot Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 34334/04, §§ 86-87, 15 June 2010) and a nephew (Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII, and Kovacic and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 16984/04

    BELYAEV AND DIGTYAR v. UKRAINE

    These submissions are consistent with the similar numerous cases concerning conditions of detention in Ukrainian pre-trial detention facilities (see, for example, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 86-88, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, §§ 64-69, 12 October 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 84-89, 25 October 2007; Malenko, cited above, § 52; Koktysh, cited above, § 98-100; Visloguzov, cited above, §§ 58-61; Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, §§ 48-52, 20 May 2010; and Znaykin, cited above, §§ 49-53).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

    KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court has already noted the importance of a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients, stating that the failure to ensure such is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 98, 24 May 2016; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 94, 21 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03

    SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA

    It considered such travel arrangements impermissible, irrespective of the duration (see Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 108-113, 25 October 2007).
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