Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FYODOROV AND FYODOROVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  Further, the Court considers that even in matters concerning the lawful application of force to counter resistance, State agents are responsible for reasonably planning their interventions in order to minimise potential injuries (see, mutatis mutandis, Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, §§ 71-72, 76, ECHR 2000-XII; R.L. and M.-J.D. v. France, no. 44568/98, §§ 66-73, 19 May 2004; and Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 162-165, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  Allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence assessed by the Court based on the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see, as a recent authority, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 06.03.2007 - 27473/02

  ERDOGAN YAGIZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  It may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his or her own eyes, even if not in the eyes of others (see, for example, ErdoÄ?an YaÄ?ız v. Turkey, no. 27473/02, § 37, ECHR 2007-III (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 2570/04

  KUCHERUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  In deciding on the compliance of such measures with the above provision, the Court has examined, among other relevant factors, whether the preceding decision-making process afforded sufficient procedural guarantees to the applicant (see Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, §§ 94 -99, ECHR 2005-II; Jalloh, cited above, §§ 69, 76 and 82); Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, § 89, 19 June 2007; and Kucheruk v. Ukraine, no. 2570/04, §§ 139 - 146, ECHR 2007-X).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 25282/06

  DOLENEC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, ECHR 2010-...) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see, for example, Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 165, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  A. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, ECHR 2010-...) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see, for example, Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 165, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  The Court reiterates that the principle of equality of arms - in the sense of a "fair balance" between the parties - requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  On a number of occasions it has already ruled that forced medical interventions, while in principle justifiable, must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, §§ 82-83, Series A no. 244).

• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 4938/16

  PRANJIC-M-LUKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Furthermore, it has held that the involuntary examination of a person by a psychiatrist from a State-run clinic or a hospital amounted to an interference with his right to respect for his private life (see Matter v. Slovakia, no. 31534/96, § 64, 5 July 1999, and Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, § 82, 7 July 2011).
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 1781/14

  LUTAYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the light of its findings in a number of other cases (see, in particular, mutatis mutandis, Y.F. v. Turkey, no. 24209/94, §§ 33-36 and 41-44, ECHR 2003-IX; Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, §§ 82-86, 7 July 2011; Konovalova v. Russia, no. 37873/04, §§ 48-50, 9 October 2014; and Y.Y. v. Russia, no. 40378/06, §§ 55-60, 23 February 2016) the Court concludes that the present complaint is admissible and that it discloses a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 59660/09

  CHORNENKO v. UKRAINE

  An interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 and furthermore is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve the aim (see, among other authorities, Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, § 83, 7 July 2011).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 22419/18

  KONOPÍK AND HURDÁLEK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  In doing so it pointed to the distribution of the burden of proof, as established by the Court's case-law (citing Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, ECHR 2000-XII; and Fyodorov and Fyodorova v. Ukraine, no. 39229/03, 7 July 2011): while the complainants had to prove that ill-treatment or injuries had occurred, the police had to prove either that the complainants had caused injuries to themselves or that the injuries had occurred in some other manner or resulted from a lawful use of force.