Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRIGORYEV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 MRK
  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) Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention in reality formed part of his detention as a criminal suspect, but without the requisite safeguards for his procedural rights, notably the right to defence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and, mutatis, mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 55-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16505/02

  DORONIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  Looking beyond the appearances and the language used and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that the applicant's administrative detention in reality formed part of his detention as a criminal suspect, but without the requisite safeguards for his procedural rights, notably the right to defence (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008, and, mutatis, mutandis, Doronin v. Ukraine, no. 16505/02, § 55-56, 19 February 2009).
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 22313/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  The Court has on many occasions condemned the practice of placing a person under administrative arrest to ensure his availability for questioning as a criminal suspect while not respecting his procedural rights (see, for example, Leonid Lazarenko v. Ukraine, no. 22313/04, § 54, 28 October 2010, and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo, cited above, § 264).

• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 12793/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  Moreover, the Court has held that this problem is of a structural nature in Ukraine (see Balitskiy v. Ukraine, no. 12793/03, § 54, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  As the Court has stated on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the core values of democratic societies (see, among many other references, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  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, 21.04.2011 - 42310/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  As to the Government's submission about the supposedly minor nature of the applicant's injuries, the Court has already held in its case-law that subjecting a person to electric shocks is a particularly serious form of ill-treatment capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering, and therefore falling to be treated as torture, even if it does not result in any long-term damage to health (see Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 124, 19 March 2009; and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 157, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 23893/03

  KAVERZIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  As the Court has held in its judgment concerning the case of Kaverzin v. Ukraine, this situation stems from systematic problems at the national level allowing for agents of the State responsible for such ill-treatment go unpunished (no. 23893/03, 15 May 2012, §§ 169-182, not yet final).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  As to the Government's submission about the supposedly minor nature of the applicant's injuries, the Court has already held in its case-law that subjecting a person to electric shocks is a particularly serious form of ill-treatment capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering, and therefore falling to be treated as torture, even if it does not result in any long-term damage to health (see Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 124, 19 March 2009; and Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, § 157, 21 April 2011).
• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 16404/03

  SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 51671/07

  Articles 59 and 63 of the Constitution concerning the right to legal assistance and the right not to incriminate oneself can be found in the judgment of 19 February 2009 in the case of Shabelnik v. Ukraine (no. 16404/03, § 25).
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 36410/02

  OLEG NIKITIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 34331/03

  SPINOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.03.2011 - 21037/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Having regard to the specific type of ill-treatment perpetrated by trained police officers with the sole aim of obtaining a confession from the first applicant - the administration of electric shocks and beating with an iron padlock - the Court considers it to be a serious abuse of the applicant's physical integrity and dignity, which thus falls to be characterised as torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Pomilyayko v. Ukraine, no. 60426/11, § 51, 11 February 2016; Myumyun v. Bulgaria, no. 67258/13, § 62, 3 November 2015; Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 64, 15 May 2012, and Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 124, 19 March 2009).

  It was thus hardly appropriate for the domestic courts simply to accept those clearly tainted statements for conviction (see, mutatis mutandis, Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, §§ 86, 15 May 2012).

• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates its position that such conduct on the part of investigative authorities is incompatible with the principle of legal certainty and protection from arbitrary detention under Article 5 of the Convention (see, for instance, Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, §§ 86-87, 15 May 2012, with further references, and Idalov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 41858/08, §§ 128-29, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  [ENG]

  The Court has established that an applicant's self-incriminating statements obtained in breach of Article 3, irrespective of the classification of the ill-treatment, and which were used at his trial, regardless of their probative value, rendered the trial as a whole unfair (see, for example, Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, 16 December 2008; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, 18 October 2011; Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, 24 January 2012; Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, 15 May 2012; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, 19 June 2012).

• EGMR, 07.12.2023 - 26074/18

  HAMPLOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court has previously found that subjecting a person to electric shocks is a particularly serious form of ill-treatment capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering (see Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 64, 15 May 2012; Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, §§ 75-76, 30 September 2014; Kanciał v. Poland, no. 37023/13, § 78, 23 May 2019; and Znakovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 32715/17, § 46, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 22735/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 23.01.2020 - 2053/09

  GOLOVKO v. UKRAINE

  Looking beyond appearances and the language used, and concentrating on the realities of the situation, the Court considers that in reality the applicant's administrative detention occurred in order to facilitate his questioning as a criminal suspect (compare Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 86, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

  MYUMYUN c. BULGARIE

  While it does not appear to have led to long-term damage to the applicant's health, as evidenced by the fact that in the domestic proceedings his injuries were classified as minor bodily harm (see paragraphs 12, 20 and 28 above), it must have caused him serious mental and physical suffering while it was continuing (compare with Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, §§ 7 and 124, 19 March 2009; Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, §§ 18 and 64-65, 15 May 2012; and Zhyzitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 57980/11, §§ 8 and 43-44, 19 February 2015, all of which concerned electric shocks and beatings in the course of custodial interrogations).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 12042/09

  [ENG]

  The Court has found in earlier cases, in respect of confessions as such, that the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture (compare Örs and Others v. Turkey, no. 46213/99, § 60, 20 June 2006; Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 64 and 66, ECHR 2007-III; Levinta v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, §§ 101 and 104-05, 16 December 2008; Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 113, 19 June 2012; and Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 84, 15 May 2012), or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, §§ 107 and 122-24, 21 September 2006, and Iordan Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 22926/04, § 136, 24 January 2012), as evidence in establishing the relevant facts in criminal proceedings rendered the proceedings as a whole unfair.
• EGMR, 28.06.2022 - 10049/20

  SOKOLOVAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has previously found that subjecting a person to electric shocks is a particularly serious form of ill-treatment capable of provoking severe pain and cruel suffering (see Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 90, 15 May 2012; Anzhelo Georgiev and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51284/09, §§ 75-76, 30 September 2014; and Kancial v. Poland, no. 37023/13, § 78, 23 May 2019; see also the 20th General Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), published in 2010, cited in Znakovas v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 32715/17, § 33, 19 November 2019).
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 39254/10

  PIRGURBAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  This ill-treatment must have caused the applicant serious mental and physical suffering, and was of such a serious and cruel nature that it can be characterised as torture (compare with Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 124, 19 March 2009; Grigoryev v. Ukraine, no. 51671/07, § 64, 15 May 2012; and Myumyun v. Bulgaria, no. 67258/13, § 62, 3 November 2015, all of which concerned electric shocks and beatings in the course of custodial interrogations).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 32715/17

  ZNAKOVAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 34592/06

  [ENG]