Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2012,27189
EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,27189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.07.2012 - 38773/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,27189)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Juli 2012 - 38773/05 (https://dejure.org/2012,27189)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,27189) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
    Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition) (englisch)




Kontextvorschau:





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (34)  

  • EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

    KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA

    In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element to torture, as recognised also 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 for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishing, intimidating, coercing, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 94, ECHR 2000-VIII; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 149, 26 January 2006; and, Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 127, 26 July 2012).

    The standard of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt", and the related evidentiary considerations set out above, must, in my opinion, be very carefully applied when it comes to allegations of torture - the gravest form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 - and therefore cannot be established by presumption, inference nor likeliness (compare with Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 91-106, ECHR 1999-V; Gäfgen, cited above, § 94; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 39-50, 59-61 and 80-86, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 15-18 and 129-139, 26 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 17-29 and 31, 2 October 2012; and, Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, §§ 111-18, 4 December 2012).

  • EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

    DANILOV v. UKRAINE

    Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see, among many authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, §§ 102 et seq., and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 99, 26 July 2012).

    In a number of other cases against Ukraine the Court has already condemned patterns of investigation similar to the one in the present case (see, inter alia, Drozd v. Ukraine, no. 12174/03, §§ 68-71, 30 July 2009; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 121-22, 26 July 2012; and Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 62, 15 November 2012).

  • EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 38833/03

    KIRPICHENKO v. UKRAINE

    Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see, among many authorities, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 102 et seq., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII, and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 99, 26 July 2012).

    The Court notes that in a number of other cases against Ukraine it has already condemned patterns of investigation similar to those of the present case (see, inter alia, Drozd v. Ukraine, no. 12174/03, §§ 68-71, 30 July 2009; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 121-122, 26 July 2012; and Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 62, 15 November 2012).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht