Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SPINOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 (material aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3. (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, 6 April 2000, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  In the light of these circumstances the Court finds that even assuming that all the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant solely in the course of his arrest, as suggested by the domestic authorities, the recourse to physical force was made necessary by his own conduct and cannot be held to have been excessive (see, mutatis mutandis, Berlinski v. Poland, cited above, §§ 62-64; Milan v. France, no. 7549/03, §§ 46-65, 24 January 2008; and, a contrario, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 65-78, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

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

• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 17215/07

  HOLODENKO v. LATVIA

  Relying on Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, 27 November 2008, the Government considered that those circumstances had counted heavily against the applicant and therefore the Government's burden of proof that the use of force had not been excessive became less stringent.

  They alleged that, in contrast to Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, 27 November 2008, the Internal Security Office had taken concrete steps to investigate the allegations.

• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 52212/13

  KOZLOVSKA v. UKRAINE

  The repetition of such remittal orders within one set of proceedings discloses a serious deficiency by itself (see, for example, Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, § 56, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 27620/09

  GORDIYENKO v. UKRAINE

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see, among others, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII; Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007; and Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, § 51, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 21.02.2019 - 7088/11

  GABLISHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  These circumstances count heavily against the applicants concerned, with the result that the burden placed on the Government to prove that the use of force was not excessive in this case is less stringent (see Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, § 49, 27 November 2008; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 65-78, ECHR 2000-XII; and Barta v. Hungary, no. 26137/04, § 71, 10 April 2007).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 3466/09

  ZALEVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  However, such force may be used only if indispensable and must not be excessive (see, among others, Rehbock, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 68-78, ECHR 2000-XII; Ivan Vasilev v. Bulgaria, no. 48130/99, § 63, 12 April 2007, Spinov v. Ukraine, no. 34331/03, § 51, 27 November 2008).