Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEKETOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BEKETOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (30)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  In particular, its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).

• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his treatment while in detention (see, for example, Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 83, ECHR 2006-XII), that the diagnoses and care are prompt and accurate (see Hummatov, cited above, § 115, and Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 104-106, 28 March 2006), and that - where necessitated by the nature of a medical condition - supervision is regular and systematic and involves a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at curing the detainee's diseases or preventing their aggravation, rather than addressing them on a symptomatic basis (see Hummatov, cited above, §§ 109 and 114; Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 79, 4 October 2005; and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 211, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 07.11.2006 - 30649/05

  HOLOMIOV v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  The authorities must also show that the necessary conditions were created for the prescribed treatment to be actually followed through (see Hummatov, cited above, § 116, and Holomiov v. Moldova, no. 30649/05, § 117, 7 November 2006).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 23215/02

  ROMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  These principles also apply to detainees' confinement in a court and during their transportation, and include providing proper nutrition (see Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia, no. 22405/04, §§ 101-105, 26 February 2015; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, §§ 88-92, 11 October 2011; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, §§ 62-65, 2 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 103-113, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  These principles also apply to detainees' confinement in a court and during their transportation, and include providing proper nutrition (see Yevgeniy Bogdanov v. Russia, no. 22405/04, §§ 101-105, 26 February 2015; Romanova v. Russia, no. 23215/02, §§ 88-92, 11 October 2011; Kovaleva v. Russia, no. 7782/04, §§ 62-65, 2 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 103-113, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  Having regard to its conclusion in paragraph 102 above, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine those issues separately under Article 13 of the Convention (see Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009).
• EGMR, 20.10.2011 - 5903/10

  STRUCL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2019 - 44436/09

  While it is not for the Court to give a ruling on an issue of domestic law that is as yet unsettled, the absence of any case-law indicates the uncertainty of that remedy in practice (see, mutatis mutandis, Štrucl and others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, § 127, 20 October 2011).
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 39908/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 7193/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.05.2013 - 9607/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 3811/02

  DENISENKO AND BOGDANCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 38771/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29810/03
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04

  KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 37810/03

  BAGEL v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

  DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02

  GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 33627/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 57980/11

  ZHYZITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 25209/06

  GORBATENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 12174/03

  DROZD v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 37794/14

  NAGORSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 60426/11

  POMILYAYKO v. UKRAINE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 14057/17

  SUKACHOV v. UKRAINE

  Beketov v. Ukraine [CTE], no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019; Kyiv SIZO (from 2008);.
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 44047/09

  SOKOLOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, §§ 110-12, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law, see Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, §§ 125-30, 19 February 2019), the Court has already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 7174/11

  DEBELYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  (a) violations of Articles 3 and 13 (application no. 7174/11) concerning the conditions of detention in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre (SIZO) and lack of domestic remedies for the relevant complaint, in the light of the Court's findings in Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 122-41, ECHR 2016); Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, §§ 110-12, judgment of 28 March 2006); and, as a recent example, Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, §§ 125-30, judgment of 19 February 2019);.

• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 1976/13

  IVASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the unexplained delay of at least five years in carrying out the applicant's surgery in respect of the hydrocele, and the absence of any documented regular supervision of his condition, the Court considers that the medical care provided to the applicant cannot be regarded as adequate (compare Chupryna v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 876/16, §§ 39 and 42, 29 January 2019, and Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, §§ 114 and 116, 19 February 2019).
• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 19574/09

  ZABOLOTNYY v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, §§ 110-12, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, §§ 125-30, 19 February 2019), the Court found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 59753/19

  VYSOTSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 09.04.2020 - 7218/19

  DYKUSARENKO v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine, no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 17853/19

  TSATSENKO v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine, no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 14.11.2019 - 54434/18

  ONYSHCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine, no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 14.11.2019 - 1343/19

  PETRUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In the leading case of Melnik v. Ukraine (no. 72286/01, 28 March 2006; for more recent case-law see Beketov v. Ukraine, no. 44436/09, 19 February 2019), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16

  PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 57291/19

  BYELIKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 64639/19

  MOLCHENKO AND PAVLENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 25.02.2021 - 53192/18

  GLEBOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 40059/19

  YOLKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 34745/19

  PARAMUSHCHAK AND SHPAKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 54141/12

  CHERNYAVSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 52826/18

  MESHTESHUG v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 53132/18

  TSUKUR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.09.2019 - 38092/18

  LYSENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 19591/18

  PETROV AND KOROSTYLYOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.07.2019 - 27805/18

  RADYUKIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 57287/19

  MILLYER AND BENEDYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 43961/19

  VYNOGRADSKYY v. UKRAINE