Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  Despite the fact the applicant had identified some of them as the culprits, no charges were brought against them (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 78, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 28761/11

  Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The Court has on numerous occasions affirmed that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute just satisfaction in cases of ill-treatment suffered by individuals at the hands of the police or other agents of the State (see, among recent authorities in which a violation of Article 3 was found on account of torture, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 594, 24 July 2014; Atesoglu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 35, 20 January 2015; Afet Süreyya Eren v. Turkey, no. 36617/07, § 51, 20 October 2015; Zakharin and Others v. Russia, no. 22458/04, § 94, 12 November 2015; and Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 62, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 108; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  As regards an award of compensation, the Court reiterates that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-V; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 218, ECHR 2012; and Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, § 128, 4 December 2012).
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 68919/10

  PETER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 198-99, ECHR 2001-VII; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 197, ECHR 2012; and Peter v. Germany, no. 68919/10, §§ 55-57, 4 September 2014).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  As regards an award of compensation, the Court reiterates that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for the non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-V; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 218, ECHR 2012; and Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, § 128, 4 December 2012).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The question of whether the applicant received compensation for the damage caused by the treatment contrary to Article 3 - comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, § 143, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  SERGEY VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  In assessing the amount of compensation awarded by a domestic court, the Court considers, on the basis of the material in its possession, what it would have done in the same position (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 211, ECHR 2006-V; Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 49, 17 October 2013; Zenkov v. Russia, no. 37858/08, § 52, 30 April 2014; and Smetanko v. Russia, no. 6239/04, § 41, 29 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  ATESOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The Court has on numerous occasions affirmed that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute just satisfaction in cases of ill-treatment suffered by individuals at the hands of the police or other agents of the State (see, among recent authorities in which a violation of Article 3 was found on account of torture, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 594, 24 July 2014; Atesoglu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 35, 20 January 2015; Afet Süreyya Eren v. Turkey, no. 36617/07, § 51, 20 October 2015; Zakharin and Others v. Russia, no. 22458/04, § 94, 12 November 2015; and Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 62, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 37858/08

  ZENKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  In assessing the amount of compensation awarded by a domestic court, the Court considers, on the basis of the material in its possession, what it would have done in the same position (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 211, ECHR 2006-V; Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 49, 17 October 2013; Zenkov v. Russia, no. 37858/08, § 52, 30 April 2014; and Smetanko v. Russia, no. 6239/04, § 41, 29 April 2010).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 22458/04

  ZAKHARIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 60426/11

  POMILYAYKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 6239/04

  SMETANKO v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 59564/16

  AVCIOGLU c. TÜRKIYE

  Le requérant argue que selon la jurisprudence de la Cour telle qu'elle résulte par exemple des affaires Kopylov c. Russie, (no 3933/04, §§ 144 et 146, 29 juillet 2010) et Shestopalov c. Russie, (no 46248/07, § 62, 28 mars 2017), le montant de l'indemnité qui lui été octroyée par la CC est inférieur à celui qu'accorde la Cour dans des affaires similaires.

  Cela dit, la somme accordée au niveau national ne doit pas être manifestement insuffisante eu égard aux circonstances de l'affaire qu'elle examine (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Kopylov, précité, § 146, Shestopalov c. Russie, no 46248/07, § 62, 28 mars 2017, et Cestaro c. Italie, no 6884/11, § 231, 7 avril 2015).

• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

  GJINI v. SERBIA

  In respect of complaints under Article 3, the national authorities have to: acknowledge the breach of the Convention, either expressly or in substance (see, among other authorities, Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 83, ECHR 2016, and authorities cited therein); and afford redress, or at least provide a person with the possibility of applying for and obtaining compensation for damage sustained as a result of the ill-treatment (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 56, 28 March 2017).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

  BAMBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Cependant, la Cour estime que ce laps de temps peut en soi compromettre l'effectivité de toute enquête susceptible d'être entamée par la suite (voir, par exemple, Shestopalov c. Russie, no 46248/07, § 52, 28 mars 2017, Razzakov c. Russie, no 57519/09, § 64, 5 février 2015, et Kopylov, précité, § 138).

 
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA

  In respect of complaints under Article 3, such as the ones here at issue, the national authorities have to: (i) acknowledge the breach of the Convention, either expressly or in substance (see, among other authorities, Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 83, ECHR 2016, with further references); (ii) afford redress, or at least provide a person with the possibility of applying for and obtaining compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the ill-treatment in question (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 56, 28 March 2017, and Gjini v. Serbia, no. 1128/16, § 54, 15 January 2019); and (iii) conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 15983/21

  HANUSA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints about an amount of compensation for a personal injury caused by police interventions (see, for example, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, 29 July 2010; Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, 28 March 2017; and Zlicic v. Serbia, nos.
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 34720/16

  KVIRIKASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  However, in cases of wilful ill-treatment, the breach of Article 3 cannot be remedied only by an award of compensation to the victim (see Gäfgen, cited above, §§ 116 and 119; see also Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 56, 28 March 2017).