Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOLOSHYN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing Equality of arms) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Voloshyn v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VOLOSHYN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 15853/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.06.2007 - 70204/01

  Erniedrigende Leibesvisitation eines Gefangenen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  As regards the body searches, the Court has held that conditions of detention - including the procedure by which prisoners are required to undergo searches - may breach the prohibition of ill-treatment laid down in Article 3 (see Frérot v. France, no. 70204/01, § 36, 12 June 2007).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  Whilst strip-searches may be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or prevent disorder or crime, they must be conducted in an appropriate manner and must be justified (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; Iwanczuk, cited above, § 59; and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 61 and 62).
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 12350/04

  WAINWRIGHT c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  Where the treatment in question does not reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3, it may nevertheless be in breach of the requirements under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom, no. 12350/04, §§ 43 and 46, 20 September 2006).

• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 22390/05

  MKHITARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  However, the relative brevity of such a period alone will not automatically exclude the treatment complained of from the scope of Article 3 if all other elements are sufficient to bring it within the scope of that provision (see Mkhitaryan v. Armenia, no. 22390/05, § 55, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 15.02.2005 - 68416/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  It is central to the concept of a fair trial, in civil as in criminal proceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively before the court and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 59, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  The Court's task under the Convention is rather to ascertain whether the proceedings as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  Thus, without prejudice to its findings in earlier similar cases, the Court will examine whether, in the particular circumstances of the present case, an action for damages could have been regarded as an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 110, 27 May 2010) or whether the use of that remedy would have interrupted the running of the six-month time-limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 99, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  Dismissing the Government's objections, the Court considered that there had been no grounds for assuming that the use of those remedies could effectively address the applicants" issues (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 69-71, 28 March 2006; Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, §§ 42-44, 7 October 2010; and Belyaev and Digtyar v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 50901/99

  VAN DER VEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  He referred to the Court's judgments in the cases of Iwanczuk v. Poland, (no. 25196/94, 15 November 2001) and Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II).
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 14146/02

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  Thus, without prejudice to its findings in earlier similar cases, the Court will examine whether, in the particular circumstances of the present case, an action for damages could have been regarded as an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, § 110, 27 May 2010) or whether the use of that remedy would have interrupted the running of the six-month time-limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 99, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 19157/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.05.2009 - 3932/02

  BATSANINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen