Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YEVGENIY PETRENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PETRENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 12167/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  Accordingly, no issue under Article 6 of the Convention arises in connection with his contention that he was convicted on the basis of evidence obtained through ill-treatment (see Yerokhina v. Ukraine, no. 12167/04, § 77, 15 November 2012 and Nikolayenko v. Ukraine, no. 39994/06, § 71, 15 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 39994/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  Accordingly, no issue under Article 6 of the Convention arises in connection with his contention that he was convicted on the basis of evidence obtained through ill-treatment (see Yerokhina v. Ukraine, no. 12167/04, § 77, 15 November 2012 and Nikolayenko v. Ukraine, no. 39994/06, § 71, 15 November 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

  Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such a restriction - whatever its justification - must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during questioning by police without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008).

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, recourse to physical force that has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  However, the Court has previously held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy for the following reasons: the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure; the victims have no formal status, with the result that their effective participation in the procedure is excluded; and any other remedy available to the victims, including a claim for damages, has limited chances of success and could be considered as theoretical and illusory (see Davydov and Others, cited above, §§ 310-12; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012; and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 11778/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  Accordingly, looking beyond the appearances and formal domestic classifications of the applicant's procedural statuses, the Court considers that at least since 18 March 2004 the applicant had been de facto treated as a suspect in the murder case (see Sergey Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 48057/06, § 58, 15 November 2012, and, by contrast, Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 05.07.2012 - 41716/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  However, the Court has previously held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy for the following reasons: the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure; the victims have no formal status, with the result that their effective participation in the procedure is excluded; and any other remedy available to the victims, including a claim for damages, has limited chances of success and could be considered as theoretical and illusory (see Davydov and Others, cited above, §§ 310-12; Golovan v. Ukraine, no. 41716/06, § 75, 5 July 2012; and Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 19157/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 55749/08

  However, the domestic courts neither expressly excluded the confession of 19 March 2004 from the case file, nor made any ruling as to its role in the applicant's conviction (see Khayrov v. Ukraine, no. 19157/06, § 78, 15 November 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 48057/06

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2026 - 3018/17

  ABAKUMOV v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications

  (i) The available material does not allow to establish conclusively that the applicant had no injuries before his arrest; that he sustained them either during the arrest operation or in custody; or that he had otherwise been subjected to either degrading or inhuman treatment by the SBU officers (for relevant examples, see Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 56-57, 6 December 2007; Kulyk v. Ukraine, no. 30760/06, §§ 82-83, 23 June 2016; and Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, §§ 78-81, 29 January 2015).

  (i) Available material does not allow to establish conclusively that the applicant had no injuries before his arrest or that he sustained them either during the arrest operation or in custody (for relevant examples, see Kozinets v. Ukraine, no. 75520/01, §§ 56-57, 6 December 2007; Kulyk v. Ukraine, no. 30760/06, §§ 82-83, 23 June 2016; and Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, §§ 78-81, 29 January 2015).

• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 53747/09

  MAKARENKO v. UKRAINE and 4 other applications

  (i) Crucial elements remain unclear: no conclusive evidence indicating presence/ timing/cause of injuries (compare A.V. v. Ukraine, no. 65032/09, §§ 49-50, 29 January 2015; Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, §§ 80-81, 29 January 2015; and Lunev v. Ukraine, no. 4725/13, § 102, 22 October 2015);.

  (ii) No appearance of thorough effort to collect objective evidence and resolve inconsistencies in witness testimonies; in particular, no forensic assessment of applicant's state of health/possible connection between his subsequent kidney disease and alleged ill-treatment; no face-to-face confrontations between applicant and witnesses contesting his allegations (compare Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, § 68, 29 January 2015 and Ushakov and Ushakova v. Ukraine, no. 10705/12, § 93, 18 June 2015);.

• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 74768/10

  CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In a number of judgments against Ukraine the Court has held that the very nature of that procedure prevented a full-scale expert examination of such medical matters to be ordered (see Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, §§ 67 and 68, 29 January 2015, and Grigoryan and Sergeyeva v. Ukraine, no. 63409/11, §§ 61-63, 28 March 2017).

• EGMR, 03.09.2020 - 44047/09

  SOKOLOVSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Available material does not allow to establish conclusively that applicant sustained injuries when he was under control of police: his own accounts of relevant circumstances are contradictory and medical evidence is not conclusive (for relevant examples, see Aleksandr Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 38683/06, § 54, 15 July 2010; and Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, §§ 78-81, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 23.07.2015 - 42164/09

  SERIKOV v. UKRAINE

  However, the Court has previously held in various contexts that this investigative procedure does not comply with the principles of an effective remedy, in particular because the enquiring officer can take only a limited number of procedural steps within that procedure (see, for example, Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, §§ 310-12, 1 July 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012; and Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, § 67, 29 January 2015).
• EGMR, 28.03.2017 - 63409/11

  GRIGORYAN AND SERGEYEVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously held that in many situations this procedure imposes unacceptable limitations on the investigation, in particular because the authorities can take only a limited number of procedural steps within it (see, for example, Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 105, 26 July 2012; Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, § 67, 29 January 2015; and Serikov v. Ukraine, no. 42164/09, § 82, 23 July 2015).
• EGMR, 10.11.2016 - 7918/07

  [ENG]

  At the relevant time, in particular at the time of the second police interview at 2 a.m. on 25 April 2006, which resulted in a confession, the applicant had de facto already been treated as a suspect (see Sergey Afanasyev v. Ukraine, no. 48057/06, § 58, 15 November 2012; Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, § 90, 29 January 2015; and, by contrast, Smolik v. Ukraine, no. 11778/05, § 54, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 39708/13

  SHCHERBAKOV v. UKRAINE

  Indeed, the very form in which the domestic investigation took place, the "pre-investigation enquiries" procedure, prevented the prosecutor from ordering a formal expert assessment on this point (see Yevgeniy Petrenko v. Ukraine, no. 55749/08, §§ 67 and 68, 29 January 2015, and Grigoryan and Sergeyeva v. Ukraine, no. 63409/11, §§ 61-63, 28 March 2017).