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 ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  Thus, the suffering and humiliation involved must go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS 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, 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, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  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, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  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, 31.05.2016 - 16270/12

  COMORASU c. ROUMANIE

  Par conséquent, les requérants doivent faire preuve de diligence et d'initiative et introduire leurs griefs sans délai excessif (mutatis mutandis Baklanov c. Ukraine, no 44425/08, § 74, 24 octobre 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 11967/12

  MECIT c. TURQUIE

  Il appartient dès lors au Gouvernement de rendre des comptes sur les blessures ou décès survenus dans l'armée (Beker c. Turquie, no 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 mars 2009, Mosendz c. Ukraine, no 52013/08, § 92, 17 janvier 2013, Baklanov c. Ukraine, no 44425/08, § 67, 24 octobre 2013, Marina Alekseyeva c. Russie, no 22490/05, § 121, 19 décembre 2013, et Metin Gültekin et autres c. Turquie, no 17081/06, § 33, 6 octobre 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, 13.10.2015 - 7505/06

  AKKOYUNLU v. TURKEY

  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, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA

  However, other than that, she did not indicate any particular omissions or deficiencies that could have rendered the investigation inadequate (see Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 88, 24 October 2013).
• EGMR - 14350/22 (anhängig)

  JONKUS v. LITHUANIA

  Having regard to the procedural obligations in case of an assertion of inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see also Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, §§ 67-68, 24 October 2013)?.
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 33032/09

  SENGÜNER v. TURKEY