Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,606) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.N. v. UKRAINE
Art. 3 MRK
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
A.N. v. Ukraine
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
A.N. v. UKRAINE
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with 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, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09
In relation to a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force that has not been rendered 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, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with 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, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16
PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE
(iii) No apparent thorough effort to collect objective evidence, in particular: police officers' accounts taken at face value; no face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and the officers implicated by him in the ill-treatment or other steps with a view to reconciling discrepancies between their accounts and verifying the origin of the documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 70, 13 March 2014, and A.N. v. Ukraine, no. 13837/09, §§ 67-70, 29 January 2015).