Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (26)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  It referred to Convention case-law under Article 3 concerning the State's obligation to carry out an effective investigation, notably the case of Mikheyev v. Russia (no. 77617/01, 26 January 2006).

  The factors relevant for determining the level of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention in such cases include the seriousness involved in a violation of Article 3 and the harm suffered by the victim (see, further to the cases cited in paragraph 59 above, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 212, 18 January 2007; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 78, 2 October 2008; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 184, 19 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 126; Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, § 92, 16 September 2010; Kopylov, cited above, § 181; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 87, 11 December 2012; and Lyapin, cited above, § 148).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 28761/11

  Polen als Handlanger der CIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The Court has on numerous occasions affirmed that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute just satisfaction in cases of ill-treatment suffered by individuals at the hands of the police or other agents of the State (see, among recent authorities in which a violation of Article 3 was found on account of torture, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 594, 24 July 2014; Ateşoğlu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 35, 20 January 2015; Afet Süreyya Eren v. Turkey, no. 36617/07, § 51, 20 October 2015; Zakharin and Others v. Russia, no. 22458/04, § 94, 12 November 2015; and Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 62, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 108; and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 148, ECHR 2014).

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 68919/10

  PETER v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, §§ 198-99, ECHR 2001-VII; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 197, ECHR 2012; and Peter v. Germany, no. 68919/10, §§ 55-57, 4 September 2014).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The factors relevant for determining the level of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention in such cases include the seriousness involved in a violation of Article 3 and the harm suffered by the victim (see, further to the cases cited in paragraph 59 above, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 212, 18 January 2007; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 78, 2 October 2008; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 184, 19 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 126; Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, § 92, 16 September 2010; Kopylov, cited above, § 181; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 87, 11 December 2012; and Lyapin, cited above, § 148).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The factors relevant for determining the level of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention in such cases include the seriousness involved in a violation of Article 3 and the harm suffered by the victim (see, further to the cases cited in paragraph 59 above, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 212, 18 January 2007; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 78, 2 October 2008; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 184, 19 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 126; Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, § 92, 16 September 2010; Kopylov, cited above, § 181; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 87, 11 December 2012; and Lyapin, cited above, § 148).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 53645/10

  ATESOGLU v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The Court has on numerous occasions affirmed that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute just satisfaction in cases of ill-treatment suffered by individuals at the hands of the police or other agents of the State (see, among recent authorities in which a violation of Article 3 was found on account of torture, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 594, 24 July 2014; Ateşoğlu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 35, 20 January 2015; Afet Süreyya Eren v. Turkey, no. 36617/07, § 51, 20 October 2015; Zakharin and Others v. Russia, no. 22458/04, § 94, 12 November 2015; and Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 62, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The factors relevant for determining the level of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention in such cases include the seriousness involved in a violation of Article 3 and the harm suffered by the victim (see, further to the cases cited in paragraph 59 above, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 113, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 163, 26 January 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 212, 18 January 2007; Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, § 78, 2 October 2008; Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 184, 19 March 2009; Gäfgen, cited above, § 126; Tigran Ayrapetyan v. Russia, no. 75472/01, § 92, 16 September 2010; Kopylov, cited above, § 181; Tangiyev v. Russia, no. 27610/05, § 87, 11 December 2012; and Lyapin, cited above, § 148).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  In assessing the amount of compensation awarded by a domestic court, the Court considers, on the basis of the material in its possession, what it would have done in the same position (see, mutatis mutandis, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 211, ECHR 2006-V; Sergey Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 33023/07, § 49, 17 October 2013; Zenkov v. Russia, no. 37858/08, § 52, 30 April 2014; and Smetanko v. Russia, no. 6239/04, § 41, 29 April 2010).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 60426/11

  POMILYAYKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 46248/07

  The Court has on numerous occasions affirmed that the finding of a violation is not sufficient to constitute just satisfaction in cases of ill-treatment suffered by individuals at the hands of the police or other agents of the State (see, among recent authorities in which a violation of Article 3 was found on account of torture, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 594, 24 July 2014; Ateşoğlu v. Turkey, no. 53645/10, § 35, 20 January 2015; Afet Süreyya Eren v. Turkey, no. 36617/07, § 51, 20 October 2015; Zakharin and Others v. Russia, no. 22458/04, § 94, 12 November 2015; and Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 62, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 22458/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 37858/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 6239/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt
• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 4722/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 2281/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 38887/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 31316/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

  MYUMYUN c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2026 - 52652/20

  ZAKUTNIY v. UKRAINE and 7 other applications

  Rn. 155 The Court has previously found no violation of Article 13 of the Convention in cases where a remedy was considered effective in principle, even though the amounts of compensation awarded to particular applicants in certain cases were too low to deprive them of victim status in respect of a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, §§ 50-51, 4 July 2006; Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 73, 28 March 2017; Artur Ivanov v. Russia, no. 62798/09, § 40, 5 June 2018; Nikitin and Others, cited above, §§ 216-17; and Dimitar Angelov v. Bulgaria, no. 58400/16, § 81, 21 July 2020).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 59564/16

  AVCiOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Rn. 76 Le requérant argue que selon la jurisprudence de la Cour telle qu'elle résulte par exemple des affaires Kopylov c. Russie, (no 3933/04, §§ 144 et 146, 29 juillet 2010) et Shestopalov c. Russie, (no 46248/07, § 62, 28 mars 2017), le montant de l'indemnité qui lui été octroyée par la CC est inférieur à celui qu'accorde la Cour dans des affaires similaires.

  Cela dit, la somme accordée au niveau national ne doit pas être manifestement insuffisante eu égard aux circonstances de l'affaire qu'elle examine (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Kopylov, précité, § 146, Shestopalov c. Russie, no 46248/07, § 62, 28 mars 2017, et Cestaro c. Italie, no 6884/11, § 231, 7 avril 2015).

• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  The Court therefore decides to join this objection to the merits of the applicant's complaints (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 40, 28 March 2017).

• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 24655/18

  BARANIN v. MONTENEGRO and 1 other application

  With respect to complaints under Article 3, such as those at issue in the present case, in addition to acknowledging the violation, the national authorities have to: (i) afford compensation, or at least provide the person with the possibility of applying for and obtaining compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the ill-treatment in question (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 56, 28 March 2017, and Gjini v. Serbia, no. 1128/16, § 54, 15 January 2019); and (ii) conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Jevtović v. Serbia, no. 29896/14, § 61, 3 December 2019).
• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 51933/08

  MURDALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 2 othe applications

  The question of whether the applicant received compensation for the damage caused by the treatment breaching Article 3 - comparable to just satisfaction, as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is an important indicator for assessing whether the breach of the Convention was redressed (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 58, 28 March 2017).
• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 40165/07

  [ENG]

  Accordingly, there is no need to examine separately the merits of their complaints under Article 13, taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (see Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 127, 19 March 2009, and Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 71, 28 March 2017).
• EGMR, 09.06.2026 - 44621/19

  ERÇIN c. TÜRKIYE

  Rn. 47 In the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention - which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention - compensation for the non-pecuniary damage arising from the breach should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 58, 28 March 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 1128/16

  GJINI v. SERBIA

  In respect of complaints under Article 3, the national authorities have to: acknowledge the breach of the Convention, either expressly or in substance (see, among other authorities, Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 83, ECHR 2016, and authorities cited therein); and afford redress, or at least provide a person with the possibility of applying for and obtaining compensation for damage sustained as a result of the ill-treatment (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 56, 28 March 2017).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

  BAMBAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Cependant, la Cour estime que ce laps de temps peut en soi compromettre l'effectivité de toute enquête susceptible d'être entamée par la suite (voir, par exemple, Shestopalov c. Russie, no 46248/07, § 52, 28 mars 2017, Razzakov c. Russie, no 57519/09, § 64, 5 février 2015, et Kopylov, précité, § 138).
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA

  In respect of complaints under Article 3, such as the ones here at issue, the national authorities have to: (i) acknowledge the breach of the Convention, either expressly or in substance (see, among other authorities, Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 83, ECHR 2016, with further references); (ii) afford redress, or at least provide a person with the possibility of applying for and obtaining compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the ill-treatment in question (see Shestopalov v. Russia, no. 46248/07, § 56, 28 March 2017, and Gjini v. Serbia, no. 1128/16, § 54, 15 January 2019); and (iii) conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 15983/21

  HANU? A v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 40057/11

  MELIKSETYAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 59465/12

  VOROSHILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 62798/09

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 34720/16

  KVIRIKASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 17459/13

  KRYUTCHENKO v. RUSSIA