Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALERIY FUKLEV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 119-20, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  In particular, they require an effective independent judicial system to be set up so that the cause of death of patients in the care of the medical profession, whether in the public or the private sector, can be determined and those responsible made accountable (see, among authorities, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I).

• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 01.04.2005 - 16/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  16/04/2014.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  The Court reiterates that an applicant who has exhausted a remedy that is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 34, 29 April 1999).
• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  This principle was followed in the case of Sergiyenko v. Ukraine (no. 47690/07, 19 April 2012), which concerned allegations of the ineffectiveness of a criminal investigation into a road-traffic accident resulting in the death of the applicant's son.
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 12167/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  However, proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Yerokhina v. Ukraine, no. 12167/04, § 52, 15 November 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39213/05

  TERESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  Having declared the relevant issues under Article 3 of the Convention inadmissible, the Court concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Tereshchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 39213/05, 18 October 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.06.2026 - 38243/15

  KULISH v. UKRAINE and 6 other applications

  Rn. 8 In the leading cases of Arskaya v. Ukraine (no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013) and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03, 16 January 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  remittals of the case on account of shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014),.

  undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,.

  Undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,.

  undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,.

  undue delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33,.

• EGMR, 16.04.2026 - 1516/21

  SINKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 8 In the leading cases of Arskaya v. Ukraine (no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013) and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03, 16 January 2014), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  remittals of the case on account of shortcomings in the investigation (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,.

  § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,.

  § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,.

  § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76,.

• EGMR, 12.02.2026 - 55046/16

  PETKANYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 17 In the leading cases of Arskaya v. Ukraine (no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013) and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03, 16 January 2014), the Court already found violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021);.

  Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021);.

  Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021);.

  Excessive delay and lack of diligence (see Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 72, 5 December 2013; Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 75-76, 16 January 2014; Marchuk v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 65663/12, §§ 35 and 37, 28 July 2016; and Tretyakova v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 63126/13, §§ 31-33, 4 November 2021);.

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  [ENG]

  The Court is of the view that the applicant was not required to submit to the civil courts a separate, additional request for compensation, which could also have given rise to a finding that the removal of her husband's organs had been carried out contrary to the domestic procedure and that her rights as the closest relative had been breached (see also Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 40-43, 19 April 2012; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, §§ 75-81, 5 December 2013; and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 77-83, 16 January 2014, where the applicants were not required to lodge separate civil claims for the alleged medical malpractice).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 2309/10

  RINGLER v. AUSTRIA

  Having declared the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, the Court concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, for the same approach, Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 98, 16 January 2014, and Lolova and Popova (dec.), no. 68053/10, § 52, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 3289/10

  BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court, having declared inadmissible certain complaints under Article 3 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14, see paragraphs 150 and 180 above) concludes that there is no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 in respect of those complaints (see, for example, Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 98, 16 January 2014); therefore, the complaint under Article 13 in that part must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4.
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 3599/10

  TRETTER AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  Having declared the complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention inadmissible, the Court concludes that the applicants have no arguable claims for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see, for the same approach, Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 98, 16 January 2014, and Lolova and Popova (dec.), no. 68053/10, § 52, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 23037/16

  KORNICKA-ZIOBRO v. POLAND

  The overall length of criminal investigation (seven years), taken together with the way in which the case was investigated, led the Court to find a violation of Article 2 in Arskaya v. Ukraine (no. 45076/05, 5 December 2013), and in Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine (no. 6318/03, 16 January 2014) (six years).
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 24213/08

  BASENKO v. UKRAINE

  Accordingly, the Court considers that it would be too onerous, and indeed unreasonable, to expect the applicant to institute separate civil proceedings after he finally became aware of the completion of criminal proceedings against S. (see, mutatis mutandis, Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 82, 16 January 2014, and Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 80, 5 December 2013).
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 12222/09

  ORLOVSKIY v. UKRAINE

  The Court, having declared the relevant complaint under Article 8 of the Convention inadmissible, concludes that the applicant has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, § 98, 16 January 2014).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 36853/09

  SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 12317/06

  AKOPYAN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 74114/12

  COJOCARU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 49045/13

  ROIGAS v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 16995/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 57444/19

  LAPSA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 10558/11

  LYUBOV KOSMATA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.07.2025 - 60191/16

  ZHUKOV AND ZHUKOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.05.2023 - 7463/17

  STEINA v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 63126/13

  TRETYAKOVA v. UKRAINE and 6 other applications
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 68053/10

  LOLOVA AND POPOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 13124/08

  BOSYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 36903/13

  MIHU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 23195/11

  KUTSEVYCHI v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 33535/13

  GEE AND PETSEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 51474/13

  KAMI?ƒSKA c. POLOGNE