Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. ... 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 28, Art. 28 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (struck out of the list) Struck out of the list Violation of Art. 38-1-a Preliminary objection dismissed (exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.01.2007 - 17674/02
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02, 39081/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (32)

• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  The lack of timely explanations provided by the Government as to the absence of these witnesses is a matter of concern for the Court; it delayed the hearing of oral evidence in the case and thus impeded the due processing of the applications, which might be regarded, to some extent, as a failure to comply with the State's obligation to furnish all necessary facilities to make possible a proper and effective examination of applications (see, mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 75, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

  The Court reiterates that the parties are obliged to comply with its evidential requests and instructions, and provide timely information on any obstacles in complying with them and provide any reasonable or convincing explanations for such a failure (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 77, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

  The Court recalls that it has already found that Article 55 of the Constitution did not possess the necessary effectiveness for a complaint under Article 5 of the Convention, as it is of a very general nature and did not provide specific redress for the allegations (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 54825/00, 25 November 2003).

  The Court notes that the established domestic standards were far below recommendatory standards established by the CPT for Ukraine, which set at least 4 m² of living space per prisoner as a desirable occupancy rate for the multiple occupancy prison cells or dormitories (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 66, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).

  (c) failure to provide proper medical treatment and assistance to detained applicants (see, Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 81, 19 October 2006; Melnik, cited above, § 106; Mikhaniv v. Ukraine, no. 75522/01, § 74, 6 November 2008; and Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 106, ECHR 2005-II (extracts);.

• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  As with an investigation under Article 2, such an investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 324 - 325, ECHR 2007-...; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 125, ECHR 2003-V).

  (b) lack of effective investigation into the detained applicants' allegations of ill-treatment (see, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2003-V; Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, no. 39042/97, §§ 107-108, 29 April 2003);.

  (d) conditions of detention ((see, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 149, ECHR 2003-V; Aliev v. Ukraine, cited above, § 150; Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, cited above, § 128; Nazarenko v. Ukraine, cited above, § 144; Khokhlich v. Ukraine, cited above, 182; Dankevich v. Ukraine, cited above, § 145; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 89, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh, cited above, § 69).

• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01

  DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  The Court, taking into account its previous case-law on the matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of conditions of detention in Ukrainian prisons, its findings in similar cases (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01 and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, quoted above), the specific circumstances of the present cases relating to acts undertaken by the domestic authorities to examine the applicants' complaints (see paragraphs 85-97 and 99-100 above) and its conclusions as to the factual circumstances of the case (see paragraphs 219-220 and 227-228 above), considers that the applicants had no effective and accessible remedies for their complaints about the conditions of detention, including overcrowding in the prison cells.

  This positive obligation requires inter alia registration of medical complaints, timely identification and diagnosis of injuries, development of comprehensive medical strategy for injuries' treatment, documenting progress in medical treatment, assessing the state of health of the person after medical treatment and the possible need for post-injury treatment, which might include assessment of the psychological state of health (see, among many other authorities and in so far as relevant to the circumstances of the present case, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, § 114, 29 November 2007; Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 193, ECHR 2005-IX; Melnik v. Ukraine, § 106, cited above; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 56, 12 October 2006).

  From the Court's point of view this in itself was not compatible with the standards established by the Convention and the Court's case-law, which has already established that a space of 1-2.5 m² of space per prisoner amounts to continuous and severe overcrowding (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 84, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 66, 12 October 2006).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  Nor have they shown how these complaints could bring improvement to the applicants' detention conditions (see Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 117, ECHR 2007-X).

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see the judgments in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 94, Reports 1998-VIII; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 99, ECHR 1999-V; Berlinski v. Poland, nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, § 59, 20 June 2002; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 131, ECHR 2007-...; and Suptel v. Ukraine, no. 39188/04, § 46, 19 February 2009).

  (a) ill-treatment in prisons or detention facilities (see, among many other authorities, Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 69, 5 April 2005, and Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, §§ 132-133, ECHR 2007-X);.

• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 89, ECHR 2000-VIII).

  Otherwise, the general legal prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment would, despite its fundamental importance, be ineffective in practice and it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 101, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 38722/02

  AFANASYEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  The obligation on High Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken together with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (see Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 59, 5 April 2005).

  (a) ill-treatment in prisons or detention facilities (see, among many other authorities, Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 38722/02, § 69, 5 April 2005, and Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, §§ 132-133, ECHR 2007-X);.

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 15250/02

  BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  Moreover, a finding of a procedural breach of Article 3 of the Convention can also depend on such factors as authorities' failure to reach any conclusive findings of fact, their failure to timely react to the complaints, question relevant possible witnesses or more generally their failure to reach any tangible results (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, §§ 102-103, Reports 1998-VIII; Sadık Önder v. Turkey, no. 28520/95, § 44, 8 January 2004; and Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).

  The Court considers that the effectiveness of this particular remedy or an aggregate of remedies require separate examination from the point of view of Article 13 of the Convention, which is different from the examination of the specific deficiencies in the inquiries conducted by the domestic authorities that were already examined more specifically from the point of view of compliance with procedural or positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention (compare and contrast, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, no. 15250/02, § 57, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 19.10.2006 - 65550/01

  KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention imposes an obligation on the State to protect the physical well-being of persons deprived of their liberty and to ensure that their health is adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI), for example by provision of the requisite medical assistance to them (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III, and Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 79, 19 October 2006).

  (c) failure to provide proper medical treatment and assistance to detained applicants (see, Koval v. Ukraine, no. 65550/01, § 81, 19 October 2006; Melnik, cited above, § 106; Mikhaniv v. Ukraine, no. 75522/01, § 74, 6 November 2008; and Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 106, ECHR 2005-II (extracts);.

• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  From the Court's point of view this in itself was not compatible with the standards established by the Convention and the Court's case-law, which has already established that a space of 1-2.5 m² of space per prisoner amounts to continuous and severe overcrowding (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 84, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 66, 12 October 2006).

  (d) conditions of detention ((see, Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 149, ECHR 2003-V; Aliev v. Ukraine, cited above, § 150; Kuznetsov v. Ukraine, cited above, § 128; Nazarenko v. Ukraine, cited above, § 144; Khokhlich v. Ukraine, cited above, 182; Dankevich v. Ukraine, cited above, § 145; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 89, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh, cited above, § 69).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see the judgments in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 94, Reports 1998-VIII; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 99, ECHR 1999-V; Berlinski v. Poland, nos. 27715/95 and 30209/96, § 59, 20 June 2002; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 131, ECHR 2007-...; and Suptel v. Ukraine, no. 39188/04, § 46, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.07.2000 - 33951/96

  CALOC v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 39042/97

  KUZNETSOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 28520/95

  SADIK ÖNDER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 57830/00

  MALECHKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 39188/04

  SUPTEL v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

• EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

  BOUYID v. BELGIUM

  The third party then pointed out that in Davydov and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 268, 1 July 2010), the Court had held that Article 3 required States to train law-enforcement officials in such a way as to give them a high level of competence in their professional conduct, such that no one could be subjected to treatment contrary to that provision.
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)

  17674/02 and 39081/02, § 158, 1 July 2010).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 13216/05

  CHIRAGOV ET AUTRES c. ARMÉNIE

  On peine à comprendre pourquoi la présente affaire ne mériterait pas le même soin et la même attention que d'autres affaires dont les répercussions étaient moindres, telles par exemple que Davydov et autres c. Ukraine (nos 17674/02 et 39081/02, 1er juillet 2010), Naoumenko c. Ukraine (no 42023/98, 10 février 2004), ou Tekin Yildiz c. Turquie (no 22913/04, 10 novembre 2005), où cet examen approfondi des éléments de preuve a eu lieu.
• EGMR, 16.02.2012 - 75345/01

  YATSENKO v. UKRAINE

  It considers that the present case is similar to other judgments against Ukraine where it has already found a breach of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention as the respective investigations were initiated with substantial delay, there were delays in the medical examination of the victim and the investigation was repeatedly re-initiated because of failure of the investigating authorities to adequately establish the facts of the case and due to serious errors in the conduct of the investigation, which were repetitively acknowledged by the domestic authorities themselves (see, among many other authorities, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, § 162, 1 July 2010; Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, § 162, ECHR 2007-X; Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 68-75, 24 June 2010; Lotarev v. Ukraine, no. 29447/04, §§ 89-90, 8 April 2010; and Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 62-64, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 65025/01

  BIRZNIEKS c. LETTONIE

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 34 confère aux requérants un droit de nature procédurale bien distincte des droits matériels énoncés au titre I de la Convention, et que la question de recevabilité ne se pose pas sur le terrain de cette disposition (voir, parmi d'autres, Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, § 507, CEDH 2005-III, Al-Moayad c. Allemagne (déc.), no 35865/03, § 117, 20 février 2007, et Davydov et autres c. Ukraine, nos 17674/02 et 39081/02, § 332, 1er juillet 2010).