Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VITKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vitkovskiy v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VITKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  The Court emphasises that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to ensure, given the practical demands of imprisonment, that the health and well-being of a prisoner are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  As the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the core values of democratic societies (see, among many other references, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  Furthermore, the Court has recognised in its case-law that some measure of control over prisoners" correspondence is called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 98, Series A no. 61, and Boris Popov v. Russia, no. 23284/04, § 106, 28 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  The burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  The Court reiterates in this connection that in the process of arrest of a person any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his or her own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336, and, as a more recent reference, Sochichiu v. Moldova, no. 28698/09, § 33, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  It follows that his complaint in this part should be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month rule pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, even though the Government did not raise in their observations any objection in that regard (see, for example, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 30 March 2004).
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 24938/06

  It follows that his complaint in this part should be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month rule pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention, even though the Government did not raise in their observations any objection in that regard (see, for example, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, and Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 30 March 2004).