Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PISKUNOVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR - 13123/16

  Having regard to the injuries found on them after their time in police custody on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; and, as recent examples, Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015, and Leonid Petrov, cited above)?.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR - 13123/16

  Having regard to the injuries found on them after their time in police custody on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, have the applicants been subjected to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V; and, as recent examples, Razzakov v. Russia, no. 57519/09, 5 February 2015, and Leonid Petrov, cited above)?.

• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 50942/08

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  29330/15 and 13123/16 by a Committee;.

  Lastly, in the case of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16) the investigative authorities opened criminal cases into the applicants' allegations in more than six months and one year respectively after the receipt of the applicants' first complaints.

  Having regard to the applicants' injuries confirmed by medical evidence, the Court concludes that the ill-treatment of Mr I.Z. (no. 62510/12), Mr Demerchyan (29330/15) and Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov (the first applicant in the case no. 13123/16) amounted to torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.

  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 20. Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no.24592/10), Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no.13123/16) submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see Appendix II).

  Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Demerchyan (no. 29330/15), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16), also claimed costs and expenses.

  Decides to join the applications; Declares Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin's (the first applicant in the case no. 24592/10) complaint under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible and the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all of the applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16); Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08) and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (the second applicant in the case no. 24592/10); Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11); Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in the case of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11); Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

  13123/16.

  13123/16.