Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SYLENOK AND TEKHNOSERVIS-PLUS v. UKRAINE
Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 Violation of P1-1 (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20988/02
- EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
- EGMR - 20988/02
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 18966/02
VOYTENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
Relevant domestic law concerning the applicant company's complaints is summarised in Voytenko v. Ukraine (no. 18966/02, §§ 20-22, 29 June 2004).The Court reiterates its case-law that impossibility for an applicant to obtain enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
The Court reiterates that, in respect of a person deprived of liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by the individual's own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on 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, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on 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, 06.03.2003 - 41510/98
JASIUNIENE v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
The Court reiterates its case-law that impossibility for an applicant to obtain enforcement of a judgment in his or her favour constitutes an interference with the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, among other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 40, ECHR 2002-III; JasiÅ«niene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 45, 6 March 2003; and Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, §§ 53-55, 29 June 2004).
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 20988/02 |
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20988/02
- EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
- EGMR - 20988/02 (anhängig)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR - 20988/02
Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20988/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SYLENOK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 20988/02
- EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 20988/02
- EGMR - 20988/02