Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKLANOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objection not necessary to examine (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Baklanov v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  Therefore, the State is under an obligation to account for any injuries occurring in the army (see, mutatis mutandis, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009, and Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013).

  According to the Court's established case-law, the State is under an obligation to account for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army, unless it can be shown on the basis of a thorough investigation that there are other explanations for the injuries caused (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009, with further references).

• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  Therefore, the State is under an obligation to account for any injuries occurring in the army (see, mutatis mutandis, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009, and Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013).

  In the recent case of Mosendz v. Ukraine (see Mosendz v. Ukraine no. 52013/08 § 113, 17 January 2013) the Court held: "... having regard to the widespread concern over the existence of "didivshchyna", or hazing, in the Ukrainian army (...) voiced, in particular, in the Ukrainian Ombudsman's report and in some international materials (...), the Court does not rule out the existence of a broader context of coercive hazing in the military unit where the applicant's son had been serving.

• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 24427/02

  KAYANKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court has held in its case-law that mandatory military service often involves such an element (see Kayankin v. Russia, no. 24427/02, § 81, 11 February 2010).

  Contrary to the situation in the Kayankin case (see Kayankin v. Russia no. 24427/02 § 111, 11 February 2010) where the investigative authorities performed a forensic investigative simulation of the incident and also undertook other "significant investigative measures, including questioning of the applicant, the accused Captain Ch., and the applicant's fellow soldiers, performing confrontation interviews to settle the differences in the parties" accounts of events and obtaining an additional expert opinion", in the present case the investigation was limited to questioning the senior officers of two military units (MU1 and MU2), the chief of the medical station in MU2 and two more witnesses mentioned by the applicant.

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court observes that Article 13 has been consistently interpreted in its case-law as requiring a remedy in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, as a classic reference, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court has held in its case-law that where time is of essence for resolving an issue in a case, there is a burden on the applicant to ensure that his or her claims are raised before both the relevant domestic authorities and the Court with the necessary expedition to ensure that they may be properly and fairly resolved (see, amongst others, Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 38683/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court observes that the investigator questioned the applicant without delay (namely, at the most two months after the complaint had been raised - see paragraph 23 above, and, for a converse example in the case-law, see Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 60, 15 July 2010).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court has viewed unexplained inactivity on the part of an applicant and indifference towards a possible investigation for a prolonged period of time as factors rendering his complaint negligent (see Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 29518/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court further emphasises that the notion of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does not, however, mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of the complaint (see N.B. v. Slovakia, no. 29518/10, § 108, 12 June 2012).
• EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 37038/97

  NURI KURT v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the existence of an actual breach of another provision is not a prerequisite for the application of Article 13 (see, for example, Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, §§ 130, 137 and 142, and Nuri Kurt v. Turkey, no. 37038/97, § 117, 29 November 2005).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 21600/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  Although the Court is not bound by the latter's findings, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact they have reached (see Rozsa v. Romania (dec.), no. 21600/05, § 58, 2 October 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 40145/98

  KILINÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 38906/07

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV v. UKRAINE

  sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to firstly examine whether the applicants' complaints of ill-treatment were adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 107, 15 May 2012; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the first applicant's complaint was adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin, cited above, § 107; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; and Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015).
• EGMR, 09.06.2026 - 44621/19

  ERÇIN c. TÜRKIYE

  Rn. 61 The positive obligation inherent under Article 3 of the Convention was held to impose a duty on the Contracting States to ensure that a person should be able to perform his military service in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the procedures and methods of military training do not subject him to distress or suffering of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of hardship inherent in military discipline and that, given the practical demands of such service, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the medical assistance he requires (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 50, ECHR 2008, and Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 65, 24 October 2013).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 53168/12

  GHIROGA c. ROUMANIE

  Le requérant n'a d'ailleurs donné aucune raison objective qui l'aurait empêché de faire lui-même ces démarches (voir, a contrario, Baklanov c. Ukraine, no 44425/08, § 77, 24 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 67, 24 October 2013; Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 121, 19 December 2013; and Metin Gültekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 17081/06, § 33, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05

  SADKOV v. UKRAINE

  Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to examine first whether the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment between 11 and 12 June 2004 was adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin, cited above, § 107; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 44758/20

  PANAYOTOPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its task and recognising that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case, the Court considers it appropriate to firstly examine whether the applicants' complaints of ill-treatment were adequately investigated by the authorities (see, for example, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 155 and 181, ECHR 2012; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 107, 15 May 2012; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70, 71 and 91, 24 October 2013; Dzhulay v. Ukraine, no. 24439/06, § 69, 3 April 2014; Chinez v. Romania, no. 2040/12, § 57, 17 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 51083/09

  REILLY v. IRELAND

  His situation as an experienced professional soldier of several years" standing must also be contrasted to that of the young conscripts examined by this Court in a number of cases, whose situation would be inherently more vulnerable (see Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, 24 October 2013, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 35761/07

  LUKASHOV v. UKRAINE

  The Court thus considers it appropriate to examine firstly whether the applicant's complaints were adequately investigated by the authorities and will do so on the basis of all the evidential material submitted by the parties (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70 and 71, 24 October 2013, and Sadkov v. Ukraine, no. 21987/05, § 90, 6 July 2017).
• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 56920/10

  CHENCHEVIK v. UKRAINE

  The Court, being sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role, considers it appropriate to start with the examination of whether the applicant's complaints were adequately investigated by the domestic authorities and then to turn to the question of whether the alleged ill-treatment took place, bearing in mind the relevant domestic findings (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 70 and 71, 24 October 2013, and Sadkov v. Ukraine, no. 21987/05, § 90, 6 July 2017).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 16270/12

  COMORASU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 7505/06

  AKKOYUNLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 42050/19 (anhängig)

  DIORDIYASHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.04.2025 - 4059/24

  LAVOCAT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 11967/12

  MECIT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 25835/10

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 64774/09

  NASIBULLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 33032/09

  SENGÜNER v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 14350/22 (anhängig)

  JONKUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 51185/11

  NEVOSTRUYEVA v. RUSSIA