Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 13 No violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  The Court has emphasised on a number of occasions that the health of prisoners has to be adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

  Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110-111, ECHR 2000-X).

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and that of the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  Where such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", the Court must also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152-153, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  While it is for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, the Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision (see, among other authorities, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 171, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  Other relevant provisions of the Code are summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, § 54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 43, 27 November 2008)).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  It further held that it was "prepared to accept that in principle the resources of medical facilities within the penitentiary system are limited compared to those of civil[ian] clinics" (see Grishin v. Russia, no. 30983/02, § 76, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  Moreover, the Court must ascertain whether the domestic law itself is in compliance with the Convention, including the general principles expressed or implied therein (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 45, Series A no. 33).
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86

  B. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  The Court notes that the period under consideration began on 5 or 6 June 2001, when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 3 December 2004 when he was convicted and sentenced by the Court of Appeal (see B. v.Austria, 28 March 1990, § 39, Series A no. 175).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 40774/02

  SOLOVEY AND ZOZULYA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 43374/02

  Other relevant provisions of the Code are summarised in the judgments of Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, § 54, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)), and Solovey and Zozulya v. Ukraine (nos. 40774/02 and 4048/03, § 43, 27 November 2008)).

• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 40512/13

  SERGEY ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  A lack of appropriate medical care may thus amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 4725/13

  LUNEV v. UKRAINE

  A lack of appropriate medical care may thus amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 5212/13

  SAVINOV v. UKRAINE

  A lack of appropriate medical care may thus amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, 21October 2010).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 9414/13

  SOKIL v. UKRAINE

  A lack of appropriate medical care may thus amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Hummatov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, 29 November 2007; Ukhan v. Ukraine, no. 30628/02, 18 December 2008; and Petukhov v. Ukraine, no. 43374/02, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 16.02.2017 - 40464/05

  ARTUR PARKHOMENKO v. UKRAINE

  The applicant stated that the conditions of his detention were similar to those described in Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine (no. 54825/00, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)) and Petukhov v. Ukraine (no. 43374/02, 21 October 2010), in the findings of the CPT and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights.