|EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01|
- 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 (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (245)
- EGMR, 07.06.2012 - 38433/09
CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALYHowever, even in such cases, the applicant's intention to mislead the Court must always be established with sufficient certainty (see, mutatis mutandis, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 58-60, 28 March 2006, and Nold v. Germany, no. 27250/02, § 87, 29 June 2006).
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 17674/02
DAVYDOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINEThe 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, 30.04.2013 - 49872/11
Julija TymoschenkoThe Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of a lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-X; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, §§ 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, §§ 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, § 103, 28 March 2006; Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 46, 20 May 2010; and Iglin v. Ukraine, no. 39908/05, § 52, 12 January 2012).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.