Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The Court must first establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the first applicant were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his or her 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 (ibid., §§ 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, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his or her 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 (ibid., §§ 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, 30.04.2002 - 45837/99

  KLEUVER v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The principle of the protection of a child's best interests has also been enshrined in the Court's case-law where children have been affected (see, for example, Kleuver v. Norway (dec.), no. 45837/99, 30 April 2002), and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 95, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  SALAKHOV AND ISLYAMOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The Court has also held on many occasions that handcuffing or shackling of an ill or otherwise weak person is disproportionate to the requirements of security and implies an unjustifiable humiliation, whether or not intentional (see, for example, Okhrimenko v. Ukraine, no. 53896/07, § 98, 15 October 2009, and Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, §§ 155 and 156, 14 March 2013).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his or her 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 (ibid., §§ 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, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The Court reiterates that in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01

  MELNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 56660/12

  The authorities must also ensure that a comprehensive record is kept of the detainee's state of health and his or her 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 (ibid., §§ 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
• EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 5826/03

  IDALOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

• EGMR, 20.10.2016 - 7334/13

  MURSIC c. CROATIE

  It was recently cited in Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 91, 24 March 2016.
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 39793/17

  GARD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  28859/11 and 28473/12, § 74, ECHR 2016; Mandet v. France, no. 30955/12, §§ 53-55, 14 January 2016; Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 129-130, 24 March 2016; N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia, no. 71776/12, §§ 81-83, 2 February 2016).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  Thus, in the absence of any contrary allegation, it cannot be said that the applicant suffered hunger or thirst (compare and contrast KadiÄ·is v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, § 55, 4 May 2006; Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, § 55, 6 November 2007; and Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 141, 24 March 2016) nor that the deprivation of any other products over limited periods can be considered as a deprivation of the applicant's vital needs.

 
• EGMR, 23.01.2020 - 35121/09

  YURIY KOVAL v. UKRAINE

  There is no indication that the applicant was particularly vulnerable, leaving aside the element of vulnerability inherent in the very fact of his detention (contrast, for example, Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 46, ECHR 2002-IX; Kaverzin v. Ukraine, no. 23893/03, § 159, 15 May 2012; Ilievska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 20136/11, § 61, 7 May 2015; Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 115, 24 March 2016; and Zherdev v. Ukraine, no. 34015/07, § 91, 27 April 2017, which concerned applicants who were seriously ill, disabled or, in the last two cases, a woman in labour and a minor left in a state of undress on police premises respectively).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 20611/17

  KOMISSAROV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court considers, therefore, that it is not appropriate now to examine these new complaints within the context of the present application (see, for example, Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, §§ 95-96, 24 March 2016).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 68385/17

  YAZICIOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Concernant les conditions de détention de la requérante, la Cour note que celles-ci sont a priori adéquates et que tant la requérante que son nouveau-né sont pris convenablement en charge par les autorités (comparer avec Korneykova et Korneykov c. Ukraine, no 56660/12, §§ 133-158, 24 mars 2016).
• EGMR, 22.09.2016 - 1574/06

  SAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  After the Court has given notice of the applicant's complaint to the Government, the burden is on the latter to collect and produce the relevant documents (see Korneykova and Korneykov v. Ukraine, no. 56660/12, § 133, 24 March 2016).