Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (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)

  KLEUTIN v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 40107/02

  KHARCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 35 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  The Court must, in addition, be satisfied that, during the period under consideration, the detention was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary manner (see Yeloyev v. Ukraine, no. 17283/02, §§ 41-42, 6 November 2008).

  He referred in that connection to the judgment in the case of Yeloyev v. Ukraine (no.17283/02, § 50, 6 November 2008), in which the Court noted that it had already examined and found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in a number of cases concerning the practice of holding defendants in custody solely on the basis of the fact that a bill of indictment had been submitted to the trial court.

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, and Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 26803/02

  SÜLEYMAN ERKAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see, among many others, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV, and Süleyman Erkan v. Turkey, no. 26803/02, § 31, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 1727/04

  OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 5911/05

  The Court may review whether national law has been observed for the purposes of this Convention provision; however, it is first and foremost up to the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, § 84, 24 June 2010).

• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 26815/16

  PETRAKOVSKYY AND LEONTYEV v. Ukraine v. UKRAINE

  (iv) Hasty conclusion that the injuries could have been sustained during a sparring match, relying essentially on officers' statements denying ill-treatment and on the delayed questioning of a martial arts coach, who could not recall the February 2011 training schedule (for relevant examples, see Gordiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 27620/09, §§ 95-96, 16 October 2014, and Kleutin v. Ukraine, no. 5911/05, § 68, 23 June 2016).

  (ii) Inquiry limited in scope and with no apparent genuine effort to elucidate the origin of the documented injuries (for relevant examples, see Grinenko v. Ukraine, no. 33627/06, § 62, 15 November 2012, and Kleutin v. Ukraine, no. 5911/05, § 68, 23 June 2016).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  (iv) Hasty conclusion that the documented injuries could have been sustained by falling on the stairs, without establishing the relevant timing and circumstances and omission to address the applicant's allegations of threats and the abuse of a gas mask and the undocumented injuries allegedly visible on the video-recording (for relevant examples, see Gordiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 27620/09, §§ 95-96, 16 October 2014; and Kleutin v. Ukraine, no. 5911/05, § 68, 23 June 2016).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  Admittedly, in three judgments the Court has said that if a national court does not fix the duration of pre-trial detention, that gives rise to uncertainty even if its maximum is clear from domestic law (see Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 6492/11, § 73, 3 July 2012; Gal, cited above, § 37; and Kleutin v. Ukraine, no. 5911/05, § 105, 23 June 2016).