Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,53352
EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,53352)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28.03.2006 - 72286/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,53352)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 28. März 2006 - 72286/01 (https://dejure.org/2006,53352)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,53352) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MELNIK v. UKRAINE

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (504)Zitiert selbst (18)

  • FG München, 23.02.1989 - X 316/83

    Steuerbefreiung für das Halten eines Kraftfahrzeugs für den Feuerwehrdienst; …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    At some time between 18 October and 31 October 2000, the applicant was transferred from Vinnytsia Prison No. 1 to Arbuzynsk Penitentiary No. 316/83 in the Mykolayiv Region ("Penitentiary No. 316/83").

    On 31 October 2000 the applicant arrived at Penitentiary No. 316/83.

    The applicant was detained in Penitentiary No. 316/83 from 31 October 2000 to 23 April 2001.

    On 13 April 2001, for the first time, the applicant applied to a doctor in Penitentiary No. 316/83, complaining that he was experiencing shortness of breath and was coughing up phlegm.

    However, he had been unable to provide a letter of authority sooner, since the head of Penitentiary No. 316/83 had refused to certify his signature.

    He submitted four letters, two from the Vinnytsia District Court dated 25 March and 2 April 2003, one from the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal dated 26 March 2003, and one from Penitentiary No. 316/83, informing him that it was impossible to provide him with access to the case file, since he did not have the letter of authority required by the Code of Criminal Procedure, or that the applicant had been moved to a different penitentiary.

    The Government submitted that, while being held in Penitentiary No. 316/83, the applicant was detained with 15 other convicts in cell no. 26, which measured 44.7 square metres ("m²").

    He further alleged that between 18 October and 31 October 2000, while being transferred from Vinnytsia Prison No. 1 to Penitentiary No. 316/83, he was placed in a sleeping compartment designed for 12-15 persons.

    He claimed that, on his arrival at Penitentiary No. 316/83, he was not given a medical examination for possible tuberculosis.

    The applicant complained that, while detained in Penitentiary No. 316/83 from 31 October 2000 to 23 April 2001, prior to his transfer to the interregional tuberculosis hospital for convicts (Penitentiary No. 5), the daily nutritional ration did not correspond to his actual needs or the statutory norms.

    As to the applicant's conditions of detention in Penitentiary No. 316/83, from 31 October 2000 to 19 April 2001, he was held in a dormitory with 32 other inmates.

    Furthermore, on arrival at Penitentiary No. 316/83, he did not undergo the required medical check for possible tuberculosis (see paragraph 29 above).

  • EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

    Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    While it is true that the applicant did not use the channels suggested by the Government, the Court notes that the problems arising from the conditions of detention and an alleged lack of proper medical treatment were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001).

    This state of affairs in itself raises an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see the judgment in Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002-VI).

  • EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

    PEERS v. GREECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    However, the absence of any such purpose cannot exclude a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-III).

    Having regard to its case-law in comparable cases, and deciding on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 10, 000 under this head (cf. Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 88, ECHR 2001-III, and Khokhlich v. Ukraine, no. 41707/98, § 228, 29 April 2003).

  • EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

    NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    As to the Government's first suggestion, that a complaint be lodged with the public prosecutor who is responsible for supervising the general lawfulness of the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases, the Court finds that this cannot be considered an effective and accessible remedy, given that the prosecutor's status under domestic law does not offer adequate safeguards for an independent and impartial review of the applicant's complaints (see the judgments in Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-... (extracts), and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005).

    It therefore rejects the applicant's claim for pecuniary damage (compare and contrast Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 142, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 66561/01

    MERIT v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    In reviewing whether the rule has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the existence of formal remedies in the legal system of the State concerned, the general legal and political context in which they operate, as well as the particular circumstances of the case and whether the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected in order to exhaust available domestic remedies (see Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 58, 30 March 2004).

    As to the Government's first suggestion, that a complaint be lodged with the public prosecutor who is responsible for supervising the general lawfulness of the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases, the Court finds that this cannot be considered an effective and accessible remedy, given that the prosecutor's status under domestic law does not offer adequate safeguards for an independent and impartial review of the applicant's complaints (see the judgments in Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-... (extracts), and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005).

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    Nevertheless, under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for 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 Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    The Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see, for example, Labita v. Italy [GC], no 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, the notion of "private life" is a broad one and is not susceptible to exhaustive definition; it may, depending on the circumstances, cover the moral and physical integrity of the person (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 22; and Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, pp. 60-61, §§ 34 and 36).
  • EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65
    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    Furthermore, they have to take into account not only the original application but also the additional documents intended to complete the latter by eliminating initial omissions or obscurities (see Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 40-41, § 98, as compared with p. 34, § 79, and pp. 39-40, §§ 96-97).
  • EGMR, 06.09.2005 - 65518/01

    SALOV v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
    As to the Government's first suggestion, that a complaint be lodged with the public prosecutor who is responsible for supervising the general lawfulness of the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases, the Court finds that this cannot be considered an effective and accessible remedy, given that the prosecutor's status under domestic law does not offer adequate safeguards for an independent and impartial review of the applicant's complaints (see the judgments in Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, § 63, 30 March 2004; mutatis mutandis, Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005-... (extracts), and Salov v. Ukraine, no. 65518/01, § 58, 6 September 2005).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

    Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  • EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

    AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 40679/98

    DANKEVICH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 25354/94

    NURAY SEN v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  • EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98

    KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 29.11.2005 - 41152/98

    SKUBENKO v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

    SARLI v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 49764/99

    WILLIS and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12

    VARGA v. HUNGARY and 78 other applications

    In a number of cases where the applicants had at their disposal less than 3 square metres of floor surface, the Court considered the overcrowding to be so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see, for example, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 102-103, 28 March 2006; Dmitriy Sazonov v. Russia, no. 30268/03, §§ 31-32, 1 March 2012; Nieciecki v. Greece, no. 11677/11, §§ 49-51, 4 December 2012; Kanakis v. Greece (no. 2), no. 40146/11, §§ 106-107, 12 December 2013; Tatishvili v. Greece, no. 26452/11, § 43, 31 July 2014; Tereshchenko v. Russia, no. 33761/05, §§ 83-84, 5 June 2014).
  • EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02

    DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    The remedy can be both preventive and compensatory in instances where persons complain about their ill-treatment in detention or the conditions thereof (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 68, 28 March 2006).

    In particular, the status of such a prosecutor under domestic law, his proximity to the prison officials with whom a prosecutor supervises on respective prisons on a daily basis and integration into that prison system, do not offer adequate safeguards to ensure conduct of an independent and impartial review of the ill-treatment complaints that are aimed at prison officials (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 69, 28 March 2006).

    As to the applicants' complaints about the conditions of detention, the Court notes that while it is true that the applicants did not use the channels suggested by the Government, the Court finds that the problems arising from the conditions of detention are of a structural nature and concern not only the applicants' personal situation (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 70, 28 March 2006).

    The Court, taking into account its previous case-law on the matter of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of conditions of detention in Ukrainian prisons, its findings in similar cases (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01 and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, quoted above), the specific circumstances of the present cases relating to acts undertaken by the domestic authorities to examine the applicants' complaints (see paragraphs 85-97 and 99-100 above) and its conclusions as to the factual circumstances of the case (see paragraphs 219-220 and 227-228 above), considers that the applicants had no effective and accessible remedies for their complaints about the conditions of detention, including overcrowding in the prison cells.

    From the Court's point of view this in itself was not compatible with the standards established by the Convention and the Court's case-law, which has already established that a space of 1-2.5 m² of space per prisoner amounts to continuous and severe overcrowding (see Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, § 84, 25 October 2007; and Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 66, 12 October 2006).

  • EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 8819/16

    SAURE v. GERMANY

    However, even in such cases, the applicant's intention to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 89, 20 June 2002; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 58-60, 28 March 2006; Nold v. Germany, no. 27250/02, § 87, 29 June 2006; and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano, cited above).".
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht