Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASILIY IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition) No violation of Article 34 - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  Such measures must also be taken in respect of other persons in the applicant's position, notably by solving the problems that have led to the Court's findings (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  The Court also reiterates that in assessing evidence in a claim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" must be applied (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 161, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 12793/03

  BALITSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08

  GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  60041/08 and 60054/08, § 107, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and, with respect to Ukraine, Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 40450/04, § 80, 15 October 2009; Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, § 101, 10 February 2011; and Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 760/03

  Such proof may, however, follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).

• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 23265/05

  GERBEY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has already dealt with similar situations in a number of cases concerning Ukraine (see, among others, Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 760/03, §§ 103-110, 26 July 2012, with further references; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 152, 157-159, 26 July 2012; Korostylyov v. Ukraine, no. 33643/03, §§ 46-50, 13 June 2013; and Andrey Zakharov v. Ukraine, no. 26581/06, §§ 66-70, 7 January 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37794/14

  NAGORSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to take these matters up separately in the context of the present application (see, inter alia, Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine, no. 760/03, § 66, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 28242/10

  VOROBYEV v. UKRAINE

  In particular, in Vasiliy Ivashchenko v. Ukraine (no. 760/03, § 123, 26 July 2012) the Court found that the Ukrainian legal system did not provide prisoners with a clear and specific procedure enabling them to obtain copies of case-file documents after the completion of criminal proceedings, either by making such copies themselves, whether by hand or using appropriate equipment, or by having the authorities make copies for them.