Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHMIL v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CHMIL v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  It has deemed treatment to be "degrading" where it was such as to arouse in the victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing them (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances or the victim's behaviour (see, among other authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the gender, age and state of health of the victim (see Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role, and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 283, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  The Court reiterates that, according to its findings in the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine (no. 23893/03, § 97, 15 May 2012), the procedures of appeal to hierarchically superior prosecutors and to the courts have not been proved to be capable of providing adequate redress in respect of complaints of both ill-treatment by the police and ineffective investigation.
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  Referring to the Court's case-law (see Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, §§ 113-117, 7 November 2013), the Government maintained that the amount claimed was excessive.
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 20806/10

  It is therefore not open to the Court to dispense with the application of the six-month rule solely because the Government have not made an objection based on this rule (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 6648/14

  POLISHCHUK v. UKRAINE

  (i) Having regard to nature, gravity and dispersed location of injuries, it has not been shown that degree of force used by police officers was justified by applicants' own conduct or that their injuries were wholly caused other than by ill-treatment (for relevant examples, see Danilov v. Ukraine, no. 2585/06, § 67, 13 March 2014; and Chmil v. Ukraine, no. 20806/10, §§ 78-79, 29 October 2015);.
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 74389/13

  PIHONI v. ALBANIA

  Despite the fact that their statements clearly conflicted with the applicant's statement, the prosecutor in charge of the case did not order a formal face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and the police officers or even an identification parade, even though the applicant explicitly asked for one (see Chmil v. Ukraine, no. 20806/10, § 89, 29 October 2015, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 96, 4 February 2016).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 21048/12

  GEDRIMAS v. LITHUANIA

  In this connection the Court also notes that several of the written statements submitted by the officers and the written records of their testimonies contained practically identical texts (see paragraphs 10, 15, 16 and 40 above), which seriously undermines their credibility (see Chmil v. Ukraine, no. 20806/10, § 89, 29 October 2015, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 96, 4 February 2016).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 55894/13

  YUSIV v. LITHUANIA

  The Court also observes that many of the reports submitted by the officers and the written records of their statements contained practically identical texts (see paragraphs 13, 23, 27, 28 and 34 above), and it has held in its previous cases that this may seriously undermine the credibility of those statements (see Chmil v. Ukraine, no. 20806/10, § 89, 29 October 2015, and Hilal Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 81553/12, § 96, 4 February 2016).