Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS 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 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  At the same time, the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with that Convention obligation with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see, for instance, Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  The word "conviction" ("condamnation" in the French text), for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), has to be understood as meaning both a finding of guilt after it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 100, Series A no. 39), and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving deprivation of liberty (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 35, Series A no. 50; and, for a more recent case-law, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 123, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  There must be a sufficient causal connection between the two (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 42, Series A no. 114, § 42; Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 64, ECHR 2002-IV; Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 117, ECHR 2008; and M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009).

 
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  The word "conviction" ("condamnation" in the French text), for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a), has to be understood as meaning both a finding of guilt after it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 100, Series A no. 39), and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving deprivation of liberty (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 35, Series A no. 50; and, for a more recent case-law, Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, § 123, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9562/81

  MONNELL ET MORRIS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  Relying on Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom (2 March 1987, § 47, Series A no. 115), the Government argued that the Contracting States enjoyed discretion in designing "legal machinery" whereby detention "after conviction" may lawfully be ordered.
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  There must be a sufficient causal connection between the two (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 42, Series A no. 114, § 42; Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 64, ECHR 2002-IV; Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 117, ECHR 2008; and M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, § 88, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  The Court has found that Article 8 does not impose a duty to arrange co-habitation visits for the detainees and their spouses (see Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 188, 29 April 2003; Dickson, cited above; and Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, § 62, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 08.02.2007 - 67275/01

  CISTIAKOV c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  It has also found no interference by the State with detainees" Article 8 rights in situations where they failed to provide sufficient evidence that they had solicited family visits which they claimed they had not received (see Cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, § 86, 8 February 2007; Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 101, 18 November 2008; and Epners-Gefners, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  SAVENKOVAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  It has also found no interference by the State with detainees" Article 8 rights in situations where they failed to provide sufficient evidence that they had solicited family visits which they claimed they had not received (see Cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, § 86, 8 February 2007; Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 101, 18 November 2008; and Epners-Gefners, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 39758/05

  TROSIN v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 41242/08

  PLESÓ v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 2040/12

  CHINEZ v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 15.07.2002 - 47095/99

  Russland, Haftbedingungen, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 2122/64

  Wemhoff ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2005 - 3456/05

  SARBAN v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  BAKLANOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 24439/06

  DZHULAY v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 21987/05

  SADKOV v. UKRAINE

  74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, § 77, 3 December 2015).

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in similar situations (see, for recent authorities, Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10, 71/11, 76/11, 83/11, and 332/11, §§ 122-28, 3 December 2015, and Zakshevskiy v. Ukraine, no. 7193/04, §§ 94-96, 17 March 2016, with further references).

• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 13577/16

  STOROZHUK AND KONONOV v. UKRAINE

  In these circumstances, and given the onus on the State to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by persons under the control of the police (see Bouyid, cited above, § 83; see also, by way of example, Adnaralov v. Ukraine, no. 10493/12, § 45, 27 November 2014; Kulik v. Ukraine, no. 10397/10, § 59, 19 March 2015; and Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10 and 4 others, § 85, 3 December 2015), the Court concludes that the State's responsibility for the applicants' ill-treatment is engaged.
• VerfGH Thüringen, 18.06.2014 - VerfGH 22/13

  § 29 des Thüringer Finanzausgleichsgesetzes vom 31. Januar 2013 (GVBl. S. 10)

  bb) Die Behauptung, die Erhebung der Umlage verschiebe die "interkommunale Finanzkraftreihenfolge", wird nicht im Ansatz begründet (zum Verbot der Übernivellierung: ThürVerfGH, Beschlüsse vom 16. April 2014 - VerfGH 5 u. 6/12 -, S. 18 f. bzw. 17 f.; BbgVerfG, Urteil vom 8. August 2013 - 71/11 -, juris Rn. 87; VerfG M-V…, Urteil vom 26. Januar 2012 - 18/10, juris Rn. 89; VerfG LSA…, Urteil vom 16. Februar 2010 - LVG 9/08, juris Rn. 123).

 
• VerfGH Thüringen, 16.04.2014 - VerfGH 6/12

  § 29 des Thüringer Finanzausgleiches vom 31.Januar 2013 (GVBL S. 10)

  Ansonsten würde den Kommunen jeder Anreiz genommen, ihre Finanzkraft durch eigene Anstrengungen zu verbessern (BbgVerfG, Urteil vom 8. August 2013 - 71/11 -, juris Rn. 87; VerfG M-V…, Urteil vom 26. Januar 2012 - 18/10, juris Rn. 89; VerfG LSA…, Urteil vom 16. Februar 2010 - LVG 9/08, juris Rn. 123).
• VerfGH Thüringen, 16.04.2014 - VerfGH 5/12

  § 29 des Thüringer Finanzausgleiches vom 31. Januar 2013 (GVBI. S. 10)

  Ansonsten würde den Kommunen jeder Anreiz genommen, ihre Finanzkraft durch eigene Anstrengungen zu verbessern (BbgVerfG, Urteil vom 8. August 2013 - 71/11 -, juris Rn. 87; VerfG M-V…, Urteil vom 26. Januar 2012 - 18/10, juris Rn. 89; VerfG LSA…, Urteil vom 16. Februar 2010 - LVG 9/08, juris Rn. 123).
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 15367/14

  SHMORGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  74820/10 and 4 others, § 77, 3 December 2015).
• VerfGH Thüringen, 18.06.2014 - VerfGH X B 222/13
  bb) Die Behauptung, die Erhebung der Umlage verschiebe die "interkommunale Finanzkraftreihenfolge", wird nicht im Ansatz begründet (zum Verbot der Übernivellierung: ThürVerfGH, Beschlüsse vom 16. April 2014 - VerfGH 5 u. 6/12 -, S. 18 f. bzw. 17 f.; BbgVerfG, Urteil vom 8. August 2013 - 71/11 -, juris Rn. 87; VerfG M-V…, Urteil vom 26. Januar 2012 - 18/10, juris Rn. 89; VerfG LSA…, Urteil vom 16. Februar 2010 - LVG 9/08, juris Rn. 123).
• EGMR, 24.02.2022 - 6768/11

  LIFINTSEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  74820/10 and 4 others, §§ 143-153,.
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  STEVAN PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  It follows that the applicant's pre-trial detention, including the period prior to his initial conviction, lasted for approximately three years in all (see, mutatis mutandis, Yaroshovets and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 74820/10 and 4 others, §§ 115-16, 3 December 2015; also, compare and contrast, for example, Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, §§ 129, 130 and 134, 22 May 2012, where the applicant, unlike the applicant in the present case, had been released from his pre-trial detention and then re-arrested).
• VG Meiningen, 06.03.2023 - 5 K 1368/22

  Iran: Kein Flüchtlingsschutz wegen passiver Teilnahme an Demonstrationen im …

  Bei der Frage, ob einem Ausländer eine Verfolgung in Form einer schwerwiegenden Verletzung seiner Religionsfreiheit droht, geht die Rechtsprechung von folgenden Grundsätzen aus (vgl. hierzu VG Stuttgart, U. v. 26.03.2018 - A 11 K 5550/17, Rdnr. 43 ff. im Anschluss an BVerwG, U . V . 20.02.2013 - 10 C 23/12-, juris, Rdnr. 24 ff, welches auf EuGH, U. v. 05.09.2012 - 0-71/11 und C-99/11 -, NVwZ 2012, 1612, Bezug nimmt):.
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 48195/17

  TOROSIAN c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 07.02.2019 - 20444/14

  PATSAKI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 01.03.2018 - 49582/14

  CHATZISTAVROU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 2945/16

  KHLEBIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 59142/16

  LAZARIDOU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 42660/11

  ANDERSEN c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 33736/16

  SAGURA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 30795/12

  VASCENKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2021 - 20936/16

  KUROCHENKO AND ZOLOTUKHIN v. UKRAINE