Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZNAYKIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  As to the Government's plea of non-exhaustion in respect of the physical conditions of detention, the Court notes that, on a number of occasions, it has rejected similar objections when it has found that such complaints pointed to problems of a structural nature in the domestic prison system (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, Melnik, cited above, §§ 69-71; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009).

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV; and Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  In these circumstances the Court considers that, by failing to bring this complaint to the attention of the domestic courts, the applicant did not comply with the rule of exhausting domestic remedies (see, also, Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 10 December 2002, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54825/00, 28 January 2003 and, by contrast, Shagin v. Ukraine, no. 20437/05, §§ 71-73, 10 December 2009).

• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  However, the Court has held on a number of occasions that a hierarchical complaint does not constitute an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 53341/99

  Rechtssache H. gegen TSCHECHISCHE REPUBLIK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  However, the Court has held on a number of occasions that a hierarchical complaint does not constitute an effective remedy for the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Hartman v. Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  In these circumstances the Court considers that, by failing to bring this complaint to the attention of the domestic courts, the applicant did not comply with the rule of exhausting domestic remedies (see, also, Koval v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 65550/01, 10 December 2002, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54825/00, 28 January 2003 and, by contrast, Shagin v. Ukraine, no. 20437/05, §§ 71-73, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 23510/02

  VITRENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  As examples of practical effectiveness of the civil remedy, the Government referred to the decisions of the domestic courts which had been analysed by this Court in the case of Vitrenko and other v. Ukraine (no. 23510/02, decision of 16 December 2008).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16447/04

  NIKOLAY KUCHERENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  The Court has previously found a violation in similar cases against Ukraine (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 49-51, 6 November 2008; Doronin, cited above, § 58; and Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 16447/04, §§ 36-38, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 37538/05

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it has adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68 and 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 14057/17

  SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE

  It has since rejected similar references made by the Government in a number of other cases (see, for instance, Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 75, 25 October 2007; Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 86, 10 December 2009; Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 42, 7 October 2010; Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 43, 12 January 2012; Belyaev and Digtyar, cited above, § 31; Samoylovich v. Ukraine, no. 28969/04, § 55, 16 May 2013; Gorbatenko v. Ukraine, no. 25209/06, § 125, 28 November 2013; Zinchenko v. Ukraine, no. 63763/11, § 53, 13 March 2014; Rodzevillo, cited above, § 41; and Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine, no. 7193/04, § 59, 17 March 2016).

  Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, 7 October 2010; Simferopol SIZO (2005-2006);.

• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 23 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  37538/05.
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that even if it restricts its analysis to the data submitted by the Government, it appears that during his detention in both Odessa and Kyiv SIZOs, the applicant was subjected to a severe lack of personal space (see, for example, Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, §§ 131 and 134, 22 October 2009 and Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, §§ 49 and 50, 7 October 2010).

• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38771/05

  [ENG]

  In respect of the applicant's statement that he had repeatedly complained to the governor of SIZO no. 3, who had ignored his demands for an investigation, the Court reiterates that hierarchical complaints in principle do not constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 68, 7 October 2010).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  As regards the Government's argument that the applicant should also have ventilated them before the SIZO administration, the Court reiterates that in principle hierarchical complaints do not constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see as a recent authority Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 68, 7 October 2010).
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 16984/04

  [ENG]

  At the same time, the materials submitted by the Government suggest that the applicants were medically examined on a regular basis and there is no indication of any failing on the part of the facility's medical unit which would give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see also Vergelskyy v. Ukraine, no. 19312/06, §§ 89-91, 12 March 2009, and Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 41, 7 October 2010).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 2718/12

  AVRAAMOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court cannot lose sight of the findings it has previously made regarding the conditions of applicants' detention in the Simferopol SIZO (see, for example, Pokhlebin v. Ukraine, no. 35581/06, §§ 46-52, 20 May 2010; Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, §§ 49-53, 7 October 2010; Izzetov v. Ukraine, no. 23136/04, §§ 42 and 43, 15 September 2011; and Samoylovich v. Ukraine, no. 28969/04, §§ 64-66, 16 May 2013).
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 28969/04

  [ENG]

  It reiterates that it has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of applications brought by individuals detained in the same facility for various periods between these years (see, for example, Dvoynykh, cited above, §§ 64-69; Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05 §§ 49-53, 7 October 2010; Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, §§ 58-61, 20 May 2010 and Izzetov v. Ukraine, no. 23136/04, §§ 42-43, 15 September 2011).
• EGMR, 15.09.2011 - 23136/04

  [ENG]

  It reiterates that it has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in a number of applications brought by individuals detained in the same facility for various periods between these years (see, for example, Dvoynykh, cited above, §§ 64-69; Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05 §§ 49-53, 7 October 2010; and Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, §§ 58-61, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 49900/11

  PANKRATYEV v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already found that such practice is not compatible with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see, for example, Nikolay Kucherenko v. Ukraine, no. 16447/04, §§ 35-38, 19 February 2009, Znaykin v. Ukraine, no. 37538/05, § 60, 7 October 2010, Kharchenko v. Ukraine, no. 40107/02, §§ 71 and 98, 10 February 2011, Tsygoniy v. Ukraine, no. 19213/04, § 60, 24 November 2011 and Taran v. Ukraine, no. 31898/06, § 67, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 15853/08

  VOLOSHYN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 16717/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 30634/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.11.2011 - 19213/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 36433/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.02.2017 - 27793/08

  LOPUSHANSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 24710/06

  YAROVENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 13837/09

  A.N. v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 9450/06

  SOSNOVSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 62198/16

  SHVETS v. UKRAINE and 1 other application