Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TEMCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39884/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  The Court observes that there is no indication that the national law conferred on the applicant a right to compensation in his situation (see Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, § 80, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 38822/97

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (zur Wahrnehmung richterlicher Aufgaben …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  Justification for any period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities (see, for example, Shishkov v. Bulgaria, no. 38822/97, § 66, ECHR 2003-I).

• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  The Court notes that it has rejected the Government's similar objections in a number of other cases concerning Ukraine (see, for example, Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 87, 10 December 2009, Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 64, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 19.07.2007 - 36898/03

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  Although in cases concerning complaints about detention conditions the Court has not always required that an applicant support each and every allegation with particular documents, recognising that relevant information and possibilities to investigate the facts in such cases lie primarily in the hands of the authorities, in order for the Court to reverse the burden of proof and examine the merits of the complaints, they must at least have been clearly and consistently formulated (see, for example, Trepashkin v. Russia, no. 36898/03, § 85, 19 July 2007).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 23 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  The Court notes that it has rejected the Government's similar objections in a number of other cases concerning Ukraine (see, for example, Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 87, 10 December 2009, Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 64, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in similar circumstances (see, among many other authorities, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, §§ 63-64, 19 February 2009, and Kharchenko, cited above, §§ 79-81, 99 and 101).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  The Court notes that the general principles applicable in the field of medical assistance to be provided to detainees were summarised in Kharchenko v. Ukraine (no. 40107/02, §§ 58-59, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 17318/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 30579/10

  The relevant provisions of the Civil Code and the Law "on the Procedure for the Compensation of Damage Caused to Citizens by the Unlawful Actions of Bodies of Inquiry, Pre-trial Investigation Authorities, Prosecutors or Courts" ("the Compensation Act") are summarised in Ratushna v. Ukraine, no. 17318/06, §§ 43-44, 2 December 2010, with further references.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 14057/17

  SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE

  In such circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has not made out an arguable claim concerning the conditions of his transfer in prison vans and of his detention in the court's cells on hearing days (see, mutatis mutandis, Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, § 97, 16 July 2015, and Korban v. Ukraine, no. 26744/16, §§ 106 and 108, 4 July 2019).
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 23 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  30579/10.
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 12258/09

  IVANOV v. UKRAINE

  The main reasons for the Court to conclude in those cases that the applicants had not been provided with adequate medical care were the lack of promptness or unjustified delays in arranging medical examination, diagnosis or commencement of medical treatment (see Melnik, §§ 104-05; Yakovenko, §§ 92-93 and 98-100; Kushnir, §§ 144-145; and Kondratyev, § 87, all cited above), the lack of qualified staff or equipment (see Yakovenko, cited above, §§ 96-97, and Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, § 89, 16 July 2015) and the authorities' acknowledgement that the medical assistance had not been timely and adequate (see Salakhov and Islyamova, cited above, § 145).

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7001/06

  BABIY v. UKRAINE

  Secondly, the Court notes that it has already examined a large number of cases against Ukraine raising complaints of inadequate medical care afforded to detainees (see, among recent cases, Barilo v. Ukraine, no. 9607/06, §§ 66-72, 16 May 2013, Kushnir v. Ukraine, no. 42184/09, §§ 134-150, 11 December 2014, and Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, §§ 84-93, 16 July 2015).
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 42523/16

  NAGABAS AND KARPENKO v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 10 The Court considers that the Government's objection regarding the loss of victim status, which is closely linked to the merits of the applicants' complaints, should be joined to the merits (see, for example, Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, § 127, 16 July 2015).
• EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 31694/06

  MEDYANIKOV v. UKRAINE

  The main reasons for the Court to conclude in those cases that the applicants had not been provided with adequate medical care were the lack of promptness or unjustified delays in arranging medical examination, diagnosis or commencement of medical treatment (see Melnik, §§ 104-05; Yakovenko, §§ 92-93 and 98-100; Kushnir, §§ 144-45; Kondratyev, § 87; and Pivovarnik, §§ 37-46, all cited above) and the lack of qualified staff or equipment (see Yakovenko, cited above, §§ 96-97, and Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, § 89, 16 July 2015).
• EGMR, 04.07.2019 - 6433/18

  SOKOLOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  It further notes that it has previously established in cases against Ukraine a lack of qualified medical staff and/or equipment capable of adequately addressing applicants' health needs in detention (see, for example, Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 96-97, 25 October 2007; Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, § 89, 16 July 2015; and Osipenkov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 31283/17, § 27, 29 January 2019).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 55634/14

  RUNTEVA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 therefore presupposes that a violation of one of the preceding paragraphs of Article 5 has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (see Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, § 129, 16 July 2015).
• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 5462/10

  RUSYN v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has frequently found violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention in situations similar to the present case (see, among numerous other cases, Molodorych v. Ukraine, no. 2161/02, § 108, 28 October 2010, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 70-76, 80-81, 85 and 100, 10 February 2011, Pleshkov v. Ukraine, no. 37789/05, § 42, 10 February 2011, Tretyakov v. Ukraine, no. 16698/05, §§ 51-52 and 59-60, 29 September 2011, Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 81, 17 October 2013, Temchenko v. Ukraine, no. 30579/10, §§ 107-109, 116 and 117, 16 July 2015, and Kushch v. Ukraine, no. 53865/11, §§ 116-126, 3 December 2015).