Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections rejected (estoppel non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 with regard to conditions of detention No violation of Art. 3 with regard to infection with tuberculosis Violation of Art. 8 with regard to initial period No ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 41707/98
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank to which should be added three percentage points (see Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, no. 28957/95, 3 July 2002, § 124, to be published in ECHR 2002).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  In such circumstances, the burden of proof shifts once again, so that it becomes incumbent on the respondent Government to show what they have done in response to the scale and seriousness of the matters complained of (see e.g., the Court's judgment of 28 July 1999 in the case of Selmouni v. France (no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  However, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IX; and Kalashnikov, cited above, § 101).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  In accordance with this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained under 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 such distress or hardship 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-III; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  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 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, 74, ECHR 2001-II; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  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 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, 74, ECHR 2001-II; and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions, as well as the specific allegations made by the applicant (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 48, ECHR 2001-III; and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, judgments of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, p. 20, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

  In addition, as underlined by the Court in the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment, present-day attitudes in the Contracting States to capital punishment are relevant for the assessment whether the acceptable threshold of suffering or degradation has been exceeded (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 41, § 104).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to its case-law in comparable cases, and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10, 000 under this head (cf. Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 88, ECHR 2001-III, and Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 228, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 35091/02

  MIKHAÏLENKI ET AUTRES c. UKRAINE

  Il incombe à l'Etat défendeur excipant du non-épuisement de convaincre la Cour que le recours en question était effectif, et qu'il existait en théorie comme en pratique à l'époque considérée (Khokhlitch c. Ukraine, no 41707/98, § 149, 29 avril 2003).
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 9852/03

  HUMMATOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  However, as the complaint concerns a situation of a continuing nature, namely the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment spanning a period of several years, the Court considers that it is necessary to have regard to the overall period in question, including the period prior to 15 April 2002, in order to properly assess the applicant's situation as it existed at the time of the Convention's entry into force with respect to Azerbaijan (see, mutatis mutandis, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 96, ECHR 2002-VI, and Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, §§ 166 and 187, 29 April 2003).

 
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 8006/08

  IOVANOVSKI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Quant à la contamination par la tuberculose en détention, la Cour rappelle que le seul fait d'avoir contracté cette maladie dans les lieux de privation de liberté ne constitue pas en soi une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention (Khokhlitch c. Ukraine, no 41707/98, §§ 194 et 195, 29 avril 2003, et Alver c. Estonie, no 64812/01, § 54, 8 novembre 2005).
• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 27341/05

  TVERDOKHLEBOV v. UKRAINE

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 149, judgment of 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 149, judgment of 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 41152/98

  SKUBENKO v. UKRAINE

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 149, 29 April 2003).
• EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 33617/02

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  The Court recalls that in the case of Khokhlich (Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, 29 April 2003) it found that several complaints about the conditions of detention by the applicant and his mother filed with the governor of the relevant detention facility were sufficient to make the authorities aware of the applicant's situation and to give them an opportunity to examine the conditions of the applicant's detention and, if appropriate, to offer redress.
• EGMR, 21.12.2004 - 34297/02

  DERKACH AND PALEK v. UKRAINE

  It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 149, judgment of 29 April 2003).

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.05.1999 - 41707/98
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98