Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 34 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a ...

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 41088/05

  BOICENCO v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nilsen and Johnsen v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 62, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, § 176, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  The Court has considered treatment to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 118, ECHR 2006-IX).

 
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 12186/08

  A.A. c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  Also a lack of legal assistance may prevent an individual from effectively exercising his right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, §§ 23-27, Series A no. 237-A, and A.A. v.Greece, no. 12186/08, §§ 78-79, 22 July 2010).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  ABDOLKHANI ET KARIMNIA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  Lastly, the absence of free legal representation has been regarded as indication to the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 154, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, and Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, §§ 114-115, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 29508/04

  KOZACHEK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  It is the State's obligation to ensure that final decisions against its organs, or entities or companies owned or controlled by the State, are enforced in compliance with the above-mentioned Convention requirements (see, among other authorities, Kozachek v. Ukraine, no. 29508/04, 7 December 2006).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 39282/98

  LAIDIN c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  The Court notes that the absence of any pecuniary claims in the proceedings is not a decisive element in determining whether Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applies under its civil head (see Vermeersch v. France (dec.), no. 39277/98, 30 January 2001, and Laidin v. France (no. 2), no.39282/98, §§ 73-76, 7 January 2003).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  The Court has also held that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may in certain circumstances compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for effective access to court (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32, and Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, §§ 23-32, ECHR 2003-III) or ensuring the principle of equality of arms (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, §§ 63-72, ECHR 2005-II).
• EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 27436/95

  STEWART-BRADY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  27436/95 and 28406/95, 2 July 1997).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 1811/06

  KRYSHCHUK v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Ta?Ÿkin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 103, ECHR 2009), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), and the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA

  In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element to torture, as recognised also in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which in Article 1 defines torture in terms of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishing, intimidating, coercing, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 94, ECHR 2000-VIII; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 149, 26 January 2006; and, Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 127, 26 July 2012).

  The standard of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt", and the related evidentiary considerations set out above, must, in my opinion, be very carefully applied when it comes to allegations of torture - the gravest form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 - and therefore cannot be established by presumption, inference nor likeliness (compare with Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 91-106, ECHR 1999-V; Gäfgen, cited above, § 94; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 39-50, 59-61 and 80-86, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 15-18 and 129-139, 26 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 17-29 and 31, 2 October 2012; and, Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, §§ 111-18, 4 December 2012).

• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 1571/07

  BILGEN v. TURKEY

  These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy (cited above, § 103) as well as the right of a prisoner to confidential face-to-face conversation with a lawyer outside the context of a criminal trial (see Altay v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 11236/09, § 68, 9 April 2019), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).

 
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 76521/12

  EMINAGAOGLU c. TURQUIE

  These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, §§ 47 and 48, Series A no. 43, and Philis v. Greece (no. 2), 27 June 1997, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-IV), disputes involving the right to a healthy environment (see Taskin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, § 133, ECHR 2004-X), prisoners" detention arrangements (see Ganci v. Italy, no. 41576/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-XI, and Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 103, ECHR 2009), the right of access to investigation documents (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 143-45, 26 July 2012), disputes regarding the non-inclusion of a conviction in a criminal record (see Alexandre v. Portugal, no. 33197/09, §§ 54 and 55, 20 November 2012), proceedings for the application of a non-custodial preventive measure (see De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 154, ECHR 2017 (extracts)), and the revocation of a civil servant's security clearance within the Ministry of Defence (see Regner, cited above, §§ 113-27).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  D.M.D. v. ROMANIA

  For example, a State has an obligation to provide a vulnerable victim of torture with free legal assistance in order to ensure his or her effective participation in the relevant domestic proceedings, but this is an obligation under Article 3 of the Convention and not under Article 6 (see Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 119, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 54547/16

  SHIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 46404/13

  KHLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 51857/13

  AMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 3473/06

  TCACI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Enfin, la Cour rappelle que la victime doit être en mesure de participer effectivement, d'une manière ou d'une autre, à l'enquête (Dedovski et autres c. Russie, no 7178/03, § 92, CEDH 2008, Denis Vassiliev c. Russie, no 32704/04, § 157, 17 décembre 2009, et Savitskyy c. Ukraine, no 38773/05, § 101, 26 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 12983/14

  PATRANIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 23265/05

  GERBEY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 59620/14

  YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA